Here's an updated version which is a bit simpler and should neither
over or under delete packets. I don't know whether I have access to post
this to review board on behalf of Brad/Joel, but in any case I think
they should get to decide if they want to use this version. Now I'm
running into issues
On 2011-01-07 04:21:05, Gabe Black wrote:
I think there are two problems with this patch. First, if at all possible
we should avoid the code duplication we'd now have for the recvTiming
function. Second, while this probably does fix the legitimate problem of
deleting packets twice, I
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/382/#review639
---
I think there are two problems with this patch. First, if at all possible
On 2011-01-07 04:21:05, Gabe Black wrote:
I think there are two problems with this patch. First, if at all possible
we should avoid the code duplication we'd now have for the recvTiming
function. Second, while this probably does fix the legitimate problem of
deleting packets twice, I
On 2011-01-07 04:21:05, Gabe Black wrote:
I think there are two problems with this patch. First, if at all possible
we should avoid the code duplication we'd now have for the recvTiming
function. Second, while this probably does fix the legitimate problem of
deleting packets twice, I
I'll have to look at this again and see if I can figure out what's
going on. For now I wanted to mention that Valgrind isn't necessarily
going to be useful in determining if there's a memory leak here
because these messages are sent infrequently and only leak a little
bit each time. In the
