Seems fine to me. I don't quite understand what exactly we are
worried will break with this approach.
Ethan
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> I think that this will work OK, and it should avoid complaints from static
> checkers about using a freed pointer.
>
> Coverity #11069.
> ---
> lib/leak-checker.c | 3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/leak-checker.c b/lib/leak-checker.c
> index 8b78182..42b3818 100644
> --- a/lib/leak-checker.c
> +++ b/lib/leak-checker.c
> @@ -216,11 +216,10 @@ hook_free(void *p, const void *caller OVS_UNUSED)
> }
>
> set_hooks(&libc_hooks);
> + log_callers("free(%p)", p);
> free(p);
> get_hooks(&libc_hooks);
>
> - log_callers("free(%p)", p);
> -
> reset_hooks();
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.2.3
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_openvswitch.org
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_openvswitch.org
