[PATCH] Make loadparm more common

David Disseldorp ddiss at suse.de
Thu Apr 3 05:45:47 MDT 2014

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:18:10 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:

> > > 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.

I disagree. IMO tallocations on the null context are much more readable
and debugable. For talloc_tos() tallocations one needs to consider
whether a stackframe is around, and when the next garbage collection
could take place.

Cheers, David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20140403/8073f9df/attachment.pgp>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list