On 02/21/2012 02:08 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
[side note - top-posting on technical lists makes it a bit harder to
follow the conversation - I've reformatted my reply]
On 02/20/2012 09:06 AM, Alex Jia wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>> I wouldn't be surprised if there is still a lurking bug here; after all,
>> my commit 15a280bb was an attempt to solve a valgrind memory leak, which
>> was then in turn reworked by Jim in commits c05ec920 and fcdfa31f. But
>> we need to diagnose and patch the real problem, if this is the case.
> As you said, it's impossible to fix this leak by my change,
> and from codes point of view, the failure path hasn't any
> memory leak. I suspect valgrind gave a incorrect report,
> and I will check it later.
At this point, I've re-read fcdfa31f, and don't see any leak of ident.
I suspect that what really happened is that you ran valgrind on 0.9.10,
prior to my commit 15a280b, where there really was a memleak on ident;
but then wrote your patch after upgrading to latest rather than
re-checking valgrind to see if libvirt.git had fixed the bug in the
meantime. Since my commit 15a280b didn't mention plugging a memory
leak, nor that I had found the regression in question by using valgrind,
I can see why I might have confused you. So not only did I cause
problems by introducing the leak prior to 0.9.10, I compounded it in my
patch to fix the leak. Sorry for the mess I caused :)
Thanks, it's okay for
me, I should see patches more careful next time :)
Regards,
Alex