On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Stefan Eissing > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am not aware of any special expectations now. Almost all is triggered by >> (parent) pool cleanups and is therefore more deterministic than before. The >> only explicit destroy is done on finished streams and slave connections no >> longer used. When the master conn disappears, all is deallocated as the >> force wills it. > > I wonder if the attached patch makes sense. > If beam_{recv,send}_cleanup() are to be executed on (parent) pool > destroy, there will be before beam_cleanup() itelf (which also calls > beam_send_cleanup() explicitly), so it should avoid potential a double > cleanup in this case. > > WDYT?
Please ignore the last (garbage) hunk.
