On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 12:26 -0400, simo wrote: > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 18:17 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote: > > Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer schrieb: > > > Sorry Jelmer, > > > > > > this wasn't clear (to prevent the use of "TALLOC_FREE"). But a real > > > issue is the fact that we have already approximately 150-200 occourences > > > of it under "source4" (checked with "cscope"). And we merge more and > > > more with the s3 codebase so we get more and more occourences. Therefore > > > I would simply propose to allow it for s4 as well. > > > > I think it's fine to use it also in source4. > > Looks fine to me too, trading a warning from valgrind with a segfault > for dereferencing a NULL pointer doesn't seem a big issue. > Actually a segfault has probably more chances to be dealt with earlier. It would be nice to standardize on one or the other though rather than using a strange mix of both. Should we encourage the use of TALLOC_FREE() over talloc_free() ?
Cheers, Jelmer
