On 8/1/06, Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> Yeah, I suspect they probably should. Now that I know why the ra side
> matters I can dive into abstracting this out with a clear conscience.
>
> Thanks for the sharp eyes Philip!
Ok, I ended up with a slightly different approach that didn't require
a change to the ra code. The only reason we hit problems when
libsvn_fs is unloaded early (after being pulled in by DSO loading of
libsvn_ra_local) was that we registered a pool cleanup in libsvn_fs's
(now global) pool. The cleanup is nice to have (it's nice to NULL out
those variables so they can't be used after the pool is cleared), but
honestly, since this only happens during global pool destruction
anyway I'm not convince it's of tremendous importance. The only case
where a problem would show up is if someone is calling into svn_fs_foo
functions during global cleanups, which seems to be a
not-especially-good idea in the first place...
Anyway, if people could look at r20932 and let me know what they think
I'd appreciate it. I'll probably propose it for backport soon...
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 2 21:59:10 2006