On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
<s.pri...@profihost.ag> wrote:
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:42 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Stefan Eissing
>>> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> 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.
>
> last garbage hunk?
>
> This one?
Yes, this change is not necessary/suitable.
