On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 16:18 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:12:03PM -0500, simo wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 15:48 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:09:32PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Author: idra > > > > Date: 2006-03-12 23:09:31 +0000 (Sun, 12 Mar 2006) > > > > New Revision: 14257 > > > > > > > > WebSVN: > > > > http://websvn.samba.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&root=samba&rev=14257 > > > > > > > > Log: > > > > > > > > commit some fixes to the previous patch as Volker pointed out some > > > > flaws. > > > > > > Still has problems. *Never* use talloc_free, always use TALLOC_FREE. > > > If you're using talloc_free you need to be re-examining your > > > patch. > > > > no, the use of talloc_free() is ok because we are always sure the > > context passed is not null and valid. > > It's a habit thing. If you *always* use TALLOC_FREE you'll have > less bugs than if you think you can get away with talloc_free > as 'it doesn't matter this time'. I just fixed an unbelievably > subtle bug where someone used a _free call instead of a _FREE > style call. No one visually inspecting the code would have (or > did) see it. Coverity found it.
Yes, I'm following the streams of patches. Do you know what I thought when I saw it? "That would not have happened if we had a talloc hierarchy". > I know it doesn't matter in this case, but using TALLOC_FREE > instead here doesn't hurt either, and so it's safe to just > always use TALLOC_FREE. See my argumentation on another mail/ > If I do a grep on the source and see talloc_free, instead > of TALLOC_FREE, I want it to be an exceptional case *only* > with a comment explaining why that was used. But I see you feel strongly (reading another reply while answering) .. in that case why not just make talloc_free check for context not being null itself instead of adding a really ugly (visually because of all caps) macro ? :-) Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://samba.org
