thank you. I submit patch v2 here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/622297/
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:30:14PM -0700, William Tu wrote: > > Hi Ryan, > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > --- a/ovn/utilities/ovn-sbctl.c > > > > +++ b/ovn/utilities/ovn-sbctl.c > > > > @@ -973,6 +973,7 @@ do_sbctl(const char *args, struct ctl_command > > > > *commands, size_t n_commands, > > > > free(commands); > > > > ovsdb_idl_txn_destroy(txn); > > > > ovsdb_idl_destroy(idl); > > > > + free(CONST_CAST(char *, args)); > > > > > > > > exit(EXIT_SUCCESS); > > > > > > Actually I don't understand why valgrind reports "definitely lost" > here. > > If the process is about to exit(), and we still have access to pointers > > pointing to un-free memory (ex: args), valgrind should report as "still > > reachable", not "definitely lost". > > > > > > > While this will work, my preference in both cases would be to make > > > the call to free from inside the main block, so that the same > > > block allocates the memory and then frees it. > > > > > > > > The main block is an infinite "for (;;)" and program exits only at > > do_nbctl(). I couldn't find a way to call the free inside the main loop. > Do > > you have any suggestion? > > Just make do_nbctl() return a success indication, then the caller can > exit if it succeeds. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
