On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 10:48 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote: > Stewart Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 00:20 -0700, Brian Aker wrote: > >> To you does it make sense to have a mashup of glibc and talloc? It > >> sounds like a mess. > > > > Perhaps we could blend talloc and some of our existing stuff and end up > > with a decent string library..... or, perhaps it is possible to make > > glib do talloc, i'd need to look a bit closer. > > I answered this in an earlier thread (no pun intended). Yes, it is > absolutely possible. It is done using the g_mem_set_vtable() function: > > http://library.gnome.org/devel/glib/2.16/glib-Memory-Allocation.html#g-mem-set-vtable
This doesn't seem to work too well with a hierarchical memory allocator like talloc though. The main beauty of talloc is that allocations are linked together in a tree. So when you say "allocate memory for a connection" every bit of memory you allocate that's related to that connection, you allocate under the context of that connection. It's then possible to easily go "here is all the memory used by this connection". It also means that talloc_free(connection) goes and frees all the memory for that connection. It makes it *really* hard to get it wrong. While with glib you still can - you have to manually free everything. Which is fraught with difficulties. It's also hard to track allocation. If we had all allocation done through talloc we could very easily have an I_S table that listed where all the memory was going for each connection in the server.... which could be rather powerful/useful. -- Stewart Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.flamingspork.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
