Re: big memleak in svn 1.5

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On 6/6/07, Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> wrote:
>
>> Ben, are you doing this testing over ra_dav, or ra_local?
>
> ra_dav
>
>
>> > Assuming Google's tree doesn't have much/any merge info, I doubt this
>> > will have much impact on the memory footprint, unless the leak is
>> > buried under svn_client__elide_mergeinfo().
>
> I don't think we have any real mergeinfo going on yet.

Looking through the post-update code, I saw a suspicious pool usage. Here's
an untested patch that might even be correct, if lucky. :-)

Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c
===================================================================
--- subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c (revision 25318)
+++ subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c (working copy)
@@ -131,8 +131,7 @@
               if (! excluded)
                 SVN_ERR(svn_wc__tweak_entry(entries, name,
                                             child_url, repos, new_rev, TRUE,
- &write_required,
- svn_wc_adm_access_pool(dirpath)));
+ &write_required, subpool));
             }

           /* If a directory and recursive... */

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand