On 05/06/2024 06:40, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 03:06:38PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
Do we have any other cases where we allocate inside of a `_INIT` style
macro? If so, I'd go with that precedence and just allocate inside of
the macro. But if we don't, then I think I'm leaning more towards the
way I did it in this patch.
I recently added an allocation to REPLAY_OPTS_INIT, I'm not sure if
there are any others. In general code that does
struct foo = FOO_INIT;
and does not call
foo_release();
is asking for trouble so I don't feel that allocations in _INIT macros
are generally a problem. The only reason not to have allocations in an
_INIT macro is if it might be used to initialize a file scope or global
variable but that's not the case here.
Happy to be convinced otherwise, I don't really feel all that strongly
about this. I'm merely aiming for the interface wth least surprises.
I'm not that fussed either, but I do prefer our _INIT macros over
_init() functions as I think they're nicer to use and easier to write
(no need to worry about memset() to zero out the struct).
Best Wishes
Phillip
