On 22 March 2017 at 11:27, D. Hugh Redelmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > Off the top of my head (I'm really short of time; sorry): > > 1) leaks of O(1) are of no consequence. There is only a small fixed > number of these events (I think) and so they are not a leak problem.
True, it makes book keeping harder. > 2) I think that there was a prefix in the name of an allocation that > meant that the leak detective should ignore it. I'd not do that here. When these events fire they seem to allocate a new pointer. For instance: $ grep EVENT_SHUNT_SCAN west.pluto.log | event_schedule_tv: new EVENT_SHUNT_SCAN-pe@0x7f5fda66c388 | inserting event EVENT_SHUNT_SCAN, timeout in 20.000000 seconds | handling event EVENT_SHUNT_SCAN | event_schedule_tv: new EVENT_SHUNT_SCAN-pe@0x7f5fda6750f8 | inserting event EVENT_SHUNT_SCAN, timeout in 20.000000 seconds | delete_pluto_event: release EVENT_SHUNT_SCAN-pe@0x7f5fda66c388 leak: EVENT_SHUNT_SCAN, item size: 32 _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
