the sorry saga of the talloc soname 'fix'

Sam Liddicott sam at
Wed Jul 8 08:47:16 GMT 2009

* Michael Adam wrote, On 08/07/09 09:42:
> ronnie sahlberg wrote:
>>> Before I explain, some points must be acknowledged:
>>>   1. There exists much code that uses talloc_steal/talloc_free
>>>      ambiguously.
>>>   2. This code needs fixing anyway.
>> ...
>>> These are the features of the solution:
>>>   1. To make talloc_steal and talloc_free unambiguous
>> There is nothing inherently ambigous with talloc_steal and talloc_free.
>> I use them a lot in CTDB and there is aboslutely no need to fix
>> anything regarding these functions or their use there.
>> These functions are NOT ambiguous by themself. They are only ambiguous
>> when they are used together with _reference/unreference. Never else.
> Precisely!
> The remedy for all our problems is to just get rid of
> talloc_reference/talloc_unreference, the source of all
> evil and grief.
> Frankly, I personally can't imagine why one would use them at all...
Excellent a joke!

(for the humour impaired, talloc_reference was added for a reason. I
make heavy use of it, hence I'm the one providing the fix to unite
talloc_reference with talloc_free).


More information about the samba-technical mailing list