On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Dirk Jagdmann wrote:
General thoughts from the list on whether or not this would be a good idea?
>>>
>>> some general comments on the whole wmem idea:
>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Jakub Zawadzki
wrote:
> Hi Evan,
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 07:45:10PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
>> Tangentially, I haven't noticed if you've checked in a pinfo memory
>> scope yet or not. Is there anything else wmem needs to be able to do
>> for that to work or did
Hi Evan,
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 07:45:10PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
> Tangentially, I haven't noticed if you've checked in a pinfo memory
> scope yet or not. Is there anything else wmem needs to be able to do
> for that to work or did you end up going in a different direction?
I need some spare t
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Jakub Zawadzki
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:12:41AM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
>> We might be able to fake the proper scoping using thread-local globals
>> if we wrap everything in functions that assert the state of a
>> dissection. Something like:
>>
>> __thre
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:12:41AM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
> We might be able to fake the proper scoping using thread-local globals
> if we wrap everything in functions that assert the state of a
> dissection. Something like:
>
> __thread wmem_allocator_t *packet_scope;
> __thread gboolean packet_
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Dirk Jagdmann wrote:
>>> General thoughts from the list on whether or not this would be a good idea?
>>
>> some general comments on the whole wmem idea:
>> memory allocation is done almost everywhere in Wireshark
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Dirk Jagdmann wrote:
>> General thoughts from the list on whether or not this would be a good idea?
>
> some general comments on the whole wmem idea:
> memory allocation is done almost everywhere in Wireshark, also in somewhat
> hidden places. For example all the p
> General thoughts from the list on whether or not this would be a good idea?
some general comments on the whole wmem idea:
memory allocation is done almost everywhere in Wireshark, also in somewhat
hidden places. For example all the proto_tree_add_* functions will need to
allocate memory. It will
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Sébastien Tandel
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Graham Bloice
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 26 October 2012 14:44, Evan Huus
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Sébastien Tandel
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Graham Bloice
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 26 October 2012 14:44, Evan Huus wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sébastien Tandel
>>
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Graham Bloice
> wrote:
> >
> > On 26 October 2012 14:44, Evan Huus wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sébastien Tandel
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Evan Hu
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Graham Bloice
wrote:
>
> On 26 October 2012 14:44, Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sébastien Tandel
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Sébastien Tandel
On 26 October 2012 14:44, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sébastien Tandel
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Sébastien Tandel
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM, G
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sébastien Tandel
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Sébastien Tandel
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Ev
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Sébastien Tandel
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have linked a tarball [2] containing the fol
Le 25/10/2012 22:10, Evan Huus a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jeff Morriss
> wrote:
>> Evan Huus wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Jeff Morriss
>>> wrote:
Evan Huus wrote:
> The usage might look something like this:
>
> wmem_allocator_t *ep_scope = wmem_c
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Jeff Morriss
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Evan Huus wrote:
The usage might look something like this:
wmem_allocator_t *ep_scope = wmem_create_glib_allocator();
doWork(ep_sc
Evan Huus wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
Evan Huus wrote:
The usage might look something like this:
wmem_allocator_t *ep_scope = wmem_create_glib_allocator();
doWork(ep_scope);
wmem_destroy_glib_allocator(ep_scope);
and then in doWork, instead of ep_alloc(numByte
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> The usage might look something like this:
>>
>> wmem_allocator_t *ep_scope = wmem_create_glib_allocator();
>> doWork(ep_scope);
>> wmem_destroy_glib_allocator(ep_scope);
>>
>> and then in doWork, instead of ep_alloc(numB
Evan Huus wrote:
The usage might look something like this:
wmem_allocator_t *ep_scope = wmem_create_glib_allocator();
doWork(ep_scope);
wmem_destroy_glib_allocator(ep_scope);
and then in doWork, instead of ep_alloc(numBytes) you would call
wmem_alloc(ep_scope, numBytes).
Hopefully stupid ques
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Sébastien Tandel
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> > I have linked a tarball [2] containing the following files:
>> > - wmem_allocator.h - the definition of the allocator i
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>
>> I have linked a tarball [2] containing the following files:
>> - wmem_allocator.h - the definition of the allocator interface
>> - wmem_allocator_glib.* - a simple implementation of the allo
On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> I have linked a tarball [2] containing the following files:
> - wmem_allocator.h - the definition of the allocator interface
> - wmem_allocator_glib.* - a simple implementation of the allocator
> interface backed by g_malloc and a singly-linked lis
TL;DR - Jakub recently proposed a few changes to emem [1]. While I
think they are a very good idea, I believe that in the long term the
current emem design has too many fundamental limitations to make it
worth adapting for our future needs. I propose that it should be
gradually deprecated in favour
24 matches
Mail list logo
