From: Bart V. A. <bva...@ac...> - 2012-10-23 07:03:16
|
On 10/23/12 03:14, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > Hmm, then I'm somehow lost in what the point of this patch is. I can't > see any memory leak it is supposed to fix. Hi Vlad, If anyone would ever add a call to the SCST core that invokes scst_local_get_initiator_port_transport_id() a second time with a non-NULL third argument then that would result in a memory leak, isn't it ? Although today the SCST core only invokes get_initiator_port_transport_id() only once per session with a non-NULL third argument I'd prefer to see this issue addressed in scst_local. If another get_initiator_port_transport_id() call is ever added to the SCST core it might get overlooked how scst_local_get_initiator_port_transport_id() behaves upon a second or later call with non-NULL third argument. Bart. |