talloc_tos() vs talloc_stackframe()
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Fri Jun 22 05:46:22 UTC 2018
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:35:22PM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-06-15 at 08:36 +0200, Volker Lendecke via samba-technical
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:10:50AM +0200, David Disseldorp via samba-technical wrote:
> > > Hi Metze,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:54:26 +0200, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> > >
> > > > For async code we always have the 'state' variable to use for temporary
> > > > memory, so we don't need talloc_stackframes...
> > >
> > > Indeed, we just need to encourage people to use it instead of the
> > > talloc_tos() context, and begin migrating over helper functions :)
> > Do you really want to pass down temporary talloc contexts everywhere?
> > That's exactly what talloc_tos() was designed for.
> Yes, we should. If memory is returned, it should be on a context.
Just to clarify: We used to have a pattern where we handed down a
talloc context for temporary use within a function. This is what I
object to and want to see it replaced by talloc_tos(). Once a function
returns allocated memory, we must always pass down the talloc context
to put this on. We must never return memory for later use on top of
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de
More information about the samba-technical