Thanks. That was my experience also. I applied this to master and branch-2.5. I think that branch-2.4 has the same bug but the backport is not trivial and I do not know whether it is worthwhile.
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:22:24PM -0800, William Tu wrote: > Hi Ben, > > The patch works OK. It passes "make check" and "make check-valgrind" > without reporting memory leaks. > > Thank you > William > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:02 PM, William Tu <u9012...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > > > Sure, I will test this fix. > > > > Regards, > > William > > > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > >> Thanks. Would you mind testing this proposed fix? > >> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-January/064070.html > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 11:32:48AM -0800, William Tu wrote: > >> > Hi Ben, > >> > > >> > These two tests generate the leak: > >> > mpls_xlate > >> > 381: MPLS xlate action > >> > ofproto-dpif > >> > 852: ofproto-dpif - MPLS handling > >> > > >> > ==65139== by 0x4E1C83: xmemdup (util.c:134) > >> > ==65139== by 0x431044: recirc_state_clone (ofproto-dpif-rid.c:221) > >> > ==65139== by 0x431044: recirc_alloc_id__ (ofproto-dpif-rid.c:238) > >> > ==65139== by 0x4315B8: recirc_alloc_id_ctx (ofproto-dpif-rid.c:281) > >> > ==65139== by 0x437C96: compose_recirculate_action__ > >> > (ofproto-dpif-xlate.c:3643) > >> > ==65139== by 0x44095A: compose_recirculate_action > >> > (ofproto-dpif-xlate.c:3664) > >> > ==65139== by 0x44095A: xlate_actions (ofproto-dpif-xlate.c:5324) > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > William > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > > I think that recirc_run needs to be modified so that > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:40:23PM +0000, ChengChun Tu wrote: > >> > > > Hi Ben, > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes, Valgrind testcase 381 reports leak and generates the call stack > >> > > below: > >> > > > I tried to debug it for a while but not able to understand it. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, what's the name of that test case? The one I see as 381 > >> doesn't > >> > > seem relevant. > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > dev mailing list > >> > > dev@openvswitch.org > >> > > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >> > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
