On 05/08/15 09:40, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 19:58 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> >> --- >> CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> >> CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> >> CC: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> >> >> For my cpuid work which I have just started, I added an array to physinfo. >> Coverity then frowned at me when it spotted all the memory leaks. >> >> Technically speaking, 4.6 isn't broken due to not having an allocation to >> free >> in _dispose(), but this patch might still be worth taking in 4.6. > We've tended to be rather lax about this for internal code when there is no > actual work in the init/dispose functions in the current code base, so > while this improvement is the sort of thing we should/would routinely > except during development window I personally don't think it is worth a > freeze exception.
Ok. > > @@ -4653,6 +4654,8 @@ static int libxl__fill_dom0_memory_info(libxl__gc >> *gc, uint32_t *target_memkb, >> if (rc < 0) >> goto out; >> >> + libxl_physinfo_dispose(&physinfo); >> + libxl_physinfo_init(&physinfo); > This pattern is starting to crop up a lot in loops of this type. I wonder > if I should make the idl generate a libxl_FOO_reinit() which just == > dispose+init? Probably a good idea. I believe I introduced the first use of that style, finding nothing better as an alternative. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
