talloc pools -- if someone feels like it, please comment

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 07:54 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:16:35AM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > Otherwise, this looks like a really neat trick, even if it starts down
> > the process of running our own malloc...  I presume it would also make
> > valgrind memory tracking a little harder to figure out. 
> 
> That's an obvious addition to tell valgrind what's useable
> and what is not. I also thought about adding a 16-byte
> unusable chunk of memory between the chunks and tell
> valgrind so, all in DEVELOPER mode.

I was more meaning:  The call to malloc() and free() for a particular
bit of memory is not longer directly up the stack from the equivalent
talloc() call.  You certainly could mark the memory as manually invalid
when setting up the 4k, and invalid on talloc_free(), but will that
still give sensible outputs?


Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20080111/70c0d424/attachment.bin