On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:25:37AM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2013 11:35 PM, "Justin Pettit" wrote:
> > >
> > > Great catch. Also, very cool with sleuthing with your malloc histogram
> > > (as discussed off-list).
> >
> >
On Aug 20, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2013 11:35 PM, "Justin Pettit" wrote:
> >
> > Great catch. Also, very cool with sleuthing with your malloc histogram (as
> > discussed off-list).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Did you look around to make sure that I didn't somehow overlook a f
On Aug 19, 2013 11:35 PM, "Justin Pettit" wrote:
>
> Great catch. Also, very cool with sleuthing with your malloc histogram
(as discussed off-list).
Thanks.
Did you look around to make sure that I didn't somehow overlook a free call
somewhere? This patch "feels right" but obviously it needs to
Great catch. Also, very cool with sleuthing with your malloc histogram (as
discussed off-list).
Do you think it's worth mentioning in the comment describing xlate_actions()?
Acked-by: Justin Pettit
--Justin
On Aug 19, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Every xlate_actions() needs a cor
Every xlate_actions() needs a corresponding xlate_out_uninit(), but the
call in handle_flow_miss() lacked one. struct xlate_out has a built-in
256-byte actions stub, so the bug only showed up for lots of actions.
Bug #19198.
Reported-by: Ronald Lee
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff
---
This probably nee
