On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: > > >> Am 05.06.2018 um 13:50 schrieb Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>: >> >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Stefan Eissing >> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 05.06.2018 um 10:46 schrieb Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>: >>>> >>>> Another choice is to allocate the brigade structure using the bucket >>>> allocator and actually free it on _destroy(). Anybody around who can >>>> remember why we used a pool allocation for that structure from the >>>> beginning? >>> >>> How about having the apr_bucket_brigade struct on the stack as an option? >> >> I had similar issue for r1822596 and proposed to have a c->tmpbb >> available (to be cleared after use, there are several similar places >> where it could be useful), but the semantic wasn't really accepted so >> Rüdiger proposed to use c->notes to create that brigade once only >> where needed. >> >> It could work I think here too. > > How to avoid using the ->tmpbb in two locations on the "pass it" stack? Is it > clear which code will use it?
Yes this is clearly a good to not have accepted it :) No issue like this with local c->notes' brigade.