From: Neelakanta R. <red...@or...> - 2015-09-15 08:17:14
|
Hi zoran, My comment was not merging, but freeing: while (rparams) { IMMSV_ADMIN_OPERATION_PARAM *p = rparams; rparams = p->next; if (p->paramName.buf) { free(p->paramName.buf); p->paramName.buf = NULL; p->paramName.size = 0; } immsv_evt_free_att_val(&(p->paramBuffer), p->paramType); p->next = NULL; free(p); } /Neel. On Tuesday 15 September 2015 12:58 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: > Hi Neelakanta, > > As I answered to Hung, merging two linked list from different sources into one list to be able to free memory, make the code more confusing. > To merge two lists, we still need to iterate to the end of one linked list. > I don't see any benefit of merging 2 linked lists. > > Best regards, > Zoran > > -----Original Message----- > From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:red...@or...] > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 8:47 AM > To: Zoran Milinkovic > Cc: ope...@li... > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: fix memory leak in display resources [#1477] > > Hi zoran, > > Reviewed and tested the patch. > Ack with the comment. > > comment: > destroy rparams in generic way as in immnd_evt_destroy (suggested by Hung). > > /Neel. > > On Saturday 12 September 2015 04:12 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: >> Summary: imm: fix memory leak in display resources [#1477] Review >> request for Trac Ticket(s): 1477 Peer Reviewer(s): Neelakanta, Hung >> Pull request to: Zoran Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.5.x, >> opensaf-4.6.x, default(4.7) Development branch: default(4.7) >> >> -------------------------------- >> Impacted area Impact y/n >> -------------------------------- >> Docs n >> Build system n >> RPM/packaging n >> Configuration files n >> Startup scripts n >> SAF services y >> OpenSAF services n >> Core libraries n >> Samples n >> Tests n >> Other n >> >> >> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> changeset 4581d497fbff57d03c32108444a47c6aa3c1d232 >> Author: Zoran Milinkovic <zor...@er...> >> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:37:21 +0200 >> >> imm: fix memory leak in display resources [#1477] >> >> The patch releases allocated memory for the result of admin op for display >> resources >> >> >> Complete diffstat: >> ------------------ >> osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> >> Testing Commands: >> ----------------- >> >> >> Testing, Expected Results: >> -------------------------- >> Check that IMMND does not have memory leak after admin ops for display >> resources >> >> >> Conditions of Submission: >> ------------------------- >> Ack from Neelakanta and Hung >> >> >> Arch Built Started Linux distro >> ------------------------------------------- >> mips n n >> mips64 n n >> x86 n n >> x86_64 n n >> powerpc n n >> powerpc64 n n >> >> >> Reviewer Checklist: >> ------------------- >> [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any >> checkmarks!] >> >> >> Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): >> >> ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries >> that need proper data filled in. >> >> ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. >> >> ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header >> >> ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. >> >> ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. >> >> ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. >> >> ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files >> (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) >> >> ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. >> Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. >> >> ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. >> >> ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes >> like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. >> >> ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other >> cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. >> >> ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is >> too much content into a single commit. >> >> ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) >> >> ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; >> Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. >> >> ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded >> commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. >> >> ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication >> of what has changed between each re-send. >> >> ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the >> comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. >> >> ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) >> >> ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the >> the threaded patch review. >> >> ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results >> for in-service upgradability test. >> >> ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series >> do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. >> |