On 11/13/2015 12:27 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
+ req_mem_ctx = talloc_new(test_ctx->tctx);
> >>+ check_leaks_push(req_mem_ctx);
> >
> >I think the last question is whether we want to use this new context or
> >just call check_leaks_push(test_ctx) recursively. I don't really mind
> >too much, both would work for me.
> >
> >Unless someone opposes, I would push the patch as-is.
> >
>I have a different question. (i haven't read patches yet)
>But I can see that check_leaks_push is called after sysdb_store_user.
>
>I would like to know why.
>because we shout try to check leaks "caused" in this function.
Wouldn't these leaks be caught by leaks checks that are pushed in
setup() and popped in teardown() ?
I found out that we use only this expression in test code:
req_mem_ctx = talloc_new(global_talloc_context);
check_leaks_push(req_mem_ctx);
So it is possible that I added this check in vain.
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
