On 12 Sep 2014, at 7:56 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Agreed - as rpluem suggested a pool cleanup should be registered for this, >> I’ve added it. > > I know that I proposed this, but rethinking I see one risk with the cleanup. > Take the following code > with long_living_apr_bucket_brigade_ptr being NULL in the beginning: > > apr_bucket_brigade *stack_variable; > > stack_variable = long_living_apr_bucket_brigade_ptr; > ap_save_brigade(f, &stack_variable, &bb, *deferred_write_pool); > long_living_apr_bucket_brigade_ptr = stack_variable; > > I guess in this case this could cause unpredictable behaviour as the stack of > the calling function is likely to be > repurposed when the pool dies. Do we see that as something that we need to > consider or do we see this as a "bug" on > caller side? If we see it as a "bug" on caller side we should probably > document our expectations. Hmmm… It does somewhat limit the caller if we force them to put the pointer somewhere not-on-the-stack. Maybe we should remove the cleanup and document the expectation that the caller must clean it up. In most cases the caller is allocating the space from the parent pool anyway, so it all gets cleaned up regardless. Regards, Graham —
