Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] tools/libxl: Improvements to libxl-save-helper when using valgrind

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/04/14 12:06, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/libxl: Improvements to 
> libxl-save-helper when using valgrind"):
>> On 10/04/14 19:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Andrew Cooper writes ("[PATCH] tools/libxl: Improvements to 
>>> libxl-save-helper when using valgrind"):
>>>>  * The destroy() function has been modified to be less antisocial.
>>> Why ?  Who calls the destroy function ?  It's even less appropriate to
>>> destroy this thing now that it's allocated statically.
>> Only on manual calls to xtl_logger_destroy(), which don't check for
>> NULLness of the function pointer before calling it.
> This logger is never destroyed, though, is it.

Correct

>   When you say "manual
> calls" you don't mean the end user.

I mean the owner of the logger explicitly calling "xtl_logger_destroy()"
on it.

>   And there are no such calls on
> this logger.

Correct.

>
> The reason I provided a function which calls abort() is that in case
> someone did foolishly try to destroy it, it produces a better stack
> trace.

I suppose that is reasonable.  There is nothing which prevents some
library code from attempting to destroy the logger in xch.

The original 'antisocial' comment was when I tried to actually destroy
the logger in the hope that it would free() the memory it allocated,
before finding that it didn't work and having to look deeper for the
leaked allocation.

I shall respin a v4 leaving this in.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel