[PATCH] Make loadparm more common

[Michael Adam]

On 2014-04-02 at 07:03 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:43:13AM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 08:43 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:21:02PM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > At this point, what I would like to see is these patches reviewed:
> > > > http://git.catalyst.net.nz/gitweb?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=5fa1a3cd62e0dcefc5364f83046db025fc0e65b9
> > > 
> > > This has a talloc_zero(NULL,...). Would it be possible to
> > > use talloc_tos() here?
> > 
> > No, I'm not willing to add any more talloc_tos() to this area of the
> > code.  Almost all the odd unexpected failures caused by this patch set
> > were due to new talloc_tos() calls, because not all callers had a
> > talloc_stackframe().  

Well, those is a bug then, and the developer mode to panic
in that case was introduced so that we can fix the callers up.

I think adding talloc_tos() is way better than adding talloc(NULL,...)
since this way we can at least easily spot the leaks.

> > Additionally, it would have to be un-done again before the code is made
> > common later in the series, and we don't use talloc_tos() in the top
> > level code. 
> 
> Then new code should take a talloc context, so that the
> caller can pass a talloc_tos(). talloc(NULL,...) is pretty
> much a no-go these days in new code.

Agreed: -1 on adding talloc(NULL, ...) calls.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 215 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20140402/c9a9cda7/attachment.pgp>