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

Re: [PATCH]: issue #2264 - multiple locks over ra_svn - v3

From: VK Sameer <sameer_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-06-02 13:28:29 CEST

On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 11:32 -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> > Yes, I definitely need to understand pool usage better.
> Are there specific questions that the relevant section of HACKING
> leaves unanswered? I'm a little too familiar with it now to be able
> to see weaknesses in the explanation there, unfortunately, but I'd be
> happy to help clarify anything. Plus it wouldn't hurt to expand the
> explanation in HACKING, if it's not sufficient. Let us know.

I think the points you made in this email would be useful, namely,

- Poolnames being hints to reviewers of pool usage.
- O(1) leakage vs. O(N) leakage in case of SVN_ERR causing a return
  from the function without cleaning up a pool created there.
- the previous point also might help reduce worry about mixing and
  matching various pools in a function.
- Using the incoming pool for data that is persistent throughout
  the function.

I've probably edited your email badly in my response. My apologies if
I've misinterpreted your comments.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 2 13:30:48 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.