On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:34:39 +0400
Eugene Indenbom <eindenbom(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So it looks like you do not really believe that talloc destructors
are always called and it's reliable to free memory in destructors. In
my humble opinion if memory deallocation is controlled from
destructor there is actually no actual need for talloc ownership.
If you always destroy a handle in a destructor then freeing in the
destructor is useless, you can simply make the destructor's parent the
memory context parent.
If you destroy conditionally in a destructor then you risk memory
leaks, unless you have other ways to make sure the context is freed.
You suggestion of putting sdap_handle objects on destroy queue and
garbage collecting them later does not sound as better alternative.
Unfortunately nothing is ideal here. But I want to play safe and have
the memory hierarchy right rather then have special cases all over.
Every special case is a long term burden.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York