On 06/14/2014 11:12 AM, Kinkie wrote: > I agree on the objective, and while this is not the solution it's a a > workaround; +1 but if you haven't already please add a TODO mentioning > the eventual refcount objective.
Committed as trunk r13469, with an explicit TODO. Thank you, Alex. > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >> On 14/06/2014 7:57 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >>> On 04/25/2014 01:58 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>>> On 25/04/2014 12:46 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >>>>> Do not leak implicit ACLs during reconfigure. >>>>> >>>>> Many ACLs implicitly created by Squid when grouping multiple ACLs were >>>>> not destroyed because those implicit ACLs where not covered by the >>>>> global ACL registry used for ACL destruction. >>>>> >>>>> See also: r13210 which did not go far enough because it incorrectly >>>>> assumed that all InnerNode() children are aclRegister()ed and, hence, >>>>> will be centrally freed. >>> >>> >>>> -0. >>> >>> Is this a "negative" vote from "Squid3 voting" rules point of view? >>> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/MergeProcedure#Squid3_Voting >> >> It is "I don't like it but not objecting to a commit if you do it". >> >> >>> >>> >>>> I believe we should move to reference counting ACLs instead of >>>> continuing to work around these edge cases. >>> >>> I agree that reference counting is an overall better design for ACLs, of >>> course. However, since refcounting ACLs would be a large change that >>> nobody has volunteered to implement in the foreseeable future (AFAIK), I >>> suggest that this [significant] leak fix should go in now. >>> >>> Any other votes/opinions? >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Alex. >>> >> > > >