Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 3] libxl: memory leaks

[Gianni Tedesco <gianni.tedesco@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 11:51 +0100, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> On 03/08/10 11:18, Gianni Tedesco (3P) wrote:
> > I wasn't aware that was the original design. It's certainly not the case
> > right now.
> 
> it has unfortunately diverged in some calls indeed.
> 
> > AFAICS that scheme would only guarantee everything has been freed if the
> > caller calls ctx_free() at appropriate points. If libxl were used in a
> > daemon, for example, it would not be simple to come up with a scheme
> > that guarantees memory bounds that are independent from uptime.
> 
> This scheme is already in place in the ocaml binding

I actually prefer explicit free's on the returned objects. That gives
callers a lot more control. Have you seen Ians patch auto-generating
that code? I think this approach combined with automatic-freeing of
scratch data used in libxl calls is the best of both worlds.

I don't know about ocaml but assume it's trivial to call a libxl_*_free
function when an object which encapsulates a libxl returned object is
destroyed?


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel