[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r12801 - in trunk/subversion: include libsvn_client libsvn_ra libsvn_ra_dav libsvn_ra_local libsvn_ra_svn

From: Peter N. Lundblad <peter_at_famlundblad.se>
Date: 2005-01-23 21:10:36 CET

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Greg Hudson wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 02:33, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > This doc string says that RA requests will "continue to use @a pool
> > for memory allocation", referring the pool parameter above, which was
> > passed to svn_ra_open() and presumably is preserved in the session
> > object.
> >
> > But this seems to contradict the doc strings of the svn_ra_* functions
> > themselves. For examples:
> Ha. An interesting argument against trying to document our pool policy
> in every docstring: it's too hard to say it succinctly enough to say it
> over and over again.
> What the caller needs to know is that the lifetime of the returned
> ra-session object is governed by the passed-in pool. So, we shouldn't
> try to document any more of that.
I am going to document the above and that the pool may be used by the RA
implementation for session-related data even during following function
calls as some kind of compromise.

> The callee will use the ra-session pool (as opposed to the temporary
> pool) every time it needs to allocate memory in order to mutate the
> ra-session object. For instance, if the ra_svn client needed to
> reconnect to the server (say, because we implement an ra_lib->retarget
> and the svnserve doesn't support retargeting), that would likely require
> allocating memory with the ra-session pool.
> > If that initial pool is used for much beyond the allocation of the
> > session object, then won't we have a memory leak problem when ra
> > functions are called repeatedly in loops? Because even if the caller
> > dutifully passes a reuseable pool to each svn_ra_foo() call, some
> > allocation would still be happening in that original pool, beyond the
> That depends on when the implementation chooses to allocate new memory.
> A loop of svn_stringbuf_setempty() and svn_stringbuf_appendcstr() would
> appear to have a memory leak because svn_stringbuf_appendcstr()
> potentially allocates memory in the stringbuf pool on each call, but in
> reality the stringbuf will never use more than a constant factor times
> the maximum size of the string.
> For an ra-session object it's harder to define a theoretical limit like
> that, but we're unlikely to see a practical problem if we use the
> ra-session pool as sparingly as possible.
Wouldn't we use a subpool for the internal session in the a case
like the one examplified above to avoid a memleak?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jan 23 21:11:31 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.