Summary: AMFND: errors reported by valgrind [#716]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 716
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans N, Hans F, Nagendra
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): default, opensaf-4.4.x
Development branch:
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services y
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
Ran a set of basic tests with valgrind turned on, and the errors
reported in the ticket are no longer present.
changeset 3299ba6200f9d66580509a2c3a91d2e771550c64
Author: Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:25:55 +1100
AMFND: errors reported by valgrind [#716]
* replace call to malloc(AVSV_AMF_CBK_INFO) with new() in comp.cc, so
it is
in line with the rest of amfnd when allocating AVSV_AMF_CBK_INFO. This
eliminates the mixing of malloc/new/delete.
* add functions amf_cbk_copy() and amf_csi_attr_list_copy(), which are
based
on the avsv equivalent but "C++ aware". This is done to avoid mixing of
malloc/new/delete when dealing with 'SaAmfProtectionGroupNotificationT'
in
'AVSV_AMF_CBK_INFO'.
* malloc/free are now used whenever a AVSV_ATTR_NAME_VAL structure is
create
or deleted. Previously, there were mixed usages of
malloc/new/free/delete
resulting in mismatches.
* fix a few places where delete was used, instead of delete [].
* in pg.cc, don't set cbk_info to NULL before deleting it.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/amfnd.cc | 4 +-
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/cbq.cc | 4 +-
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/ckpt_updt.cc | 4 +-
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/comp.cc | 14 +++--
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/compdb.cc | 6 +-
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/include/avnd_util.h | 2 +
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/pg.cc | 6 +-
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/sidb.cc | 15 ++++--
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/susm.cc | 2 +-
osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/util.cc | 145
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
10 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
<<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>>
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
<<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>>
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
<<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>>
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 n n
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
