* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, if the common case is that we update a couple of
> entries in the active cache, we actually saved 1.6MB (+ malloc
> overhead for the 17 _thousand_ allocations) by my approach.
>
> And the leak? There's none. We never actually update
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> this patch fixes a memory leak in read-cache.c: when there's cache entry
> collision we should free the previous one.
As you already noticed "read_cache()" normally just populates the
active-cache with pointers to the mmap'ed "active" file.
Whether
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 15:25 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > this patch fixes a memory leak in read-cache.c: when there's cache
> > entry collision we should free the previous one.
>
> > + free(active_cache[pos]);
> > active_cache[p
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this patch fixes a memory leak in read-cache.c: when there's cache
> entry collision we should free the previous one.
> + free(active_cache[pos]);
> active_cache[pos] = ce;
i'm having second thoughs about this one: active_cac
4 matches
Mail list logo
