On 25.02.2015 15:23, i...@apache.org wrote: > Author: ivan > Date: Wed Feb 25 14:23:00 2015 > New Revision: 1662222 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1662222 > Log: > On the 'reuse-ra-session' branch: Resolve memory leak. > > * subversion/libsvn_client/ra_cache.c > (): Include "svn_pools.h". > > (cache_entry_t): Add SESSION_POOL member to have an option to destroy > CACHE_ENTRY structure itself. > > (close_ra_session, remove_inactive_entry): Destroy SESSION_POOL > instead of closing RA session -- we have other resources allocated > for RA session, like RA callback baton, cache_entry etc. > > (open_new_session): New helper, factored out from > svn_client__ra_cache_open_session(). > > (svn_client__ra_cache_open_session): Create separate subpool for > each CACHE_ENTRY and destroy it on error.
So ... from this point on, we create *two* subpools for each session (svn_ra_open creates one, and with the above change, we create the other). That seems wasteful. I'd prefer to have a way to tell svn_ra_open to /not/ create a subpool for the session, perhaps by exposing a private ra-open function where we can pass in the actual session pool, and to keep svn_ra__close. -- Brane
