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.

Reply via email to