On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 05:02:50PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.12.12 at 17:23, Olaf Hering wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> >> >>> On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering wrote:
> >> > backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
> >> > be->mode. free
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 05:02:50PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.12.12 at 17:23, Olaf Hering o...@aepfle.de wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering o...@aepfle.de wrote:
backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
be-mode.
On Thu, Dec 06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.12.12 at 17:23, Olaf Hering wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> >> >>> On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering wrote:
> >> > backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
> >> > be->mode. free the previous value before
>>> On 06.12.12 at 17:23, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> >>> On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering wrote:
>> > backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
>> > be->mode. free the previous value before storing the current mode value.
>>
>> As said
On Wed, Dec 05, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering wrote:
> > backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
> > be->mode. free the previous value before storing the current mode value.
>
> As said before - this is one possible route to take. But did you
On Wed, Dec 05, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering o...@aepfle.de wrote:
backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
be-mode. free the previous value before storing the current mode value.
As said before - this is one possible route to take. But did
On 06.12.12 at 17:23, Olaf Hering o...@aepfle.de wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering o...@aepfle.de wrote:
backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
be-mode. free the previous value before storing the current mode value.
As
On Thu, Dec 06, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.12.12 at 17:23, Olaf Hering o...@aepfle.de wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering o...@aepfle.de wrote:
backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
be-mode. free the previous value
>>> On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering wrote:
> backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
> be->mode. free the previous value before storing the current mode value.
As said before - this is one possible route to take. But did you
consider at all the alternative of preventing
backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
be->mode. free the previous value before storing the current mode value.
Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering
---
!! Not compile tested !!
drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5
backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
be-mode. free the previous value before storing the current mode value.
Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering o...@aepfle.de
---
!! Not compile tested !!
drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+),
On 05.12.12 at 11:01, Olaf Hering o...@aepfle.de wrote:
backend_changed might be called multiple times, which will leak
be-mode. free the previous value before storing the current mode value.
As said before - this is one possible route to take. But did you
consider at all the alternative of
12 matches
Mail list logo