n Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On 29 December 2014 at 17:39, Stefan Fuhrmann > <stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Evgeny Kotkov < > evgeny.kot...@visualsvn.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Stefan Fuhrmann <stef...@apache.org> writes: > >> > [...] > >> > >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!get_node_revision_body() > >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!svn_fs_fs__dag_get_node() > >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!open_path() > >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!svn_fs_fs__node_id() > >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!svn_fs_fs__check_path() > >> mod_dav_svn.so!prep_regular() > >> mod_dav_svn.so!get_resource() > >> mod_dav.so!dav_get_resource() > >> mod_dav.so!dav_method_get() > >> ... > >> > >> Given the above, I am -1 on doing this. Please revert this change and > >> other > >> related changes that were supposed to fix the problem. > > > > > > I will keep the added sub-pools in place for now. The problems > > they cause now will always occur when we move code to the > > two-pool paradigm. The DAG cache issue is simply the trigger > > to tighten our pool usage in FSFS. > > > Stefan, > > Do I understand correctly that you're basically going to ignore this veto? > No. I had simply hoped that my explanations would give you or Evgeny pause to actually review the changes and find the spot where the wrong pool was used - something like the one that r1648272 fixed. If that could not be found within a few days, I had of course reverted the changes. But apparently no review is going to happen. Back to old bad normal in r1648532. -- Stefan^2.
