Yet another leak in the referral chasing code, this time quite small - the leak control was 56 bytes per one invocation of the rebind proc.
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 10:03 -0400, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Yet another leak in the referral chasing code, this time quite small - the leak control was 56 bytes per one invocation of the rebind proc.
Nack. I'd rather you moved the cleanup to the done: label. That way if we add any more code that might jump to cleanup, we won't reintroduce this leak.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:28:36AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 10:03 -0400, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Yet another leak in the referral chasing code, this time quite small - the leak control was 56 bytes per one invocation of the rebind proc.
Nack. I'd rather you moved the cleanup to the done: label. That way if we add any more code that might jump to cleanup, we won't reintroduce this leak.
OK, new patch is attached.
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 21:42 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:28:36AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 10:03 -0400, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Yet another leak in the referral chasing code, this time quite small - the leak control was 56 bytes per one invocation of the rebind proc.
Nack. I'd rather you moved the cleanup to the done: label. That way if we add any more code that might jump to cleanup, we won't reintroduce this leak.
OK, new patch is attached.
Ack.
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:25 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 21:42 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:28:36AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 10:03 -0400, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Yet another leak in the referral chasing code, this time quite small - the leak control was 56 bytes per one invocation of the rebind proc.
Nack. I'd rather you moved the cleanup to the done: label. That way if we add any more code that might jump to cleanup, we won't reintroduce this leak.
OK, new patch is attached.
Ack.
Pushed to master.
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org