> Now, we actually leak all these urefs (for example, when calling > gettimeofday). Even for a process calling mach_host_self() 1000 times a > second it would take 50 days to overflow. For purity, should we deallocate > the port? Overflow is set to TRUE in this code path, so it might > be okay to just not bother anyway (ignoring that we might not want to bother > because it is extremely unlikely to ever overflow)? Am I just paranoid? > There are only a dozen places or so where we call mach_host_self, so it > wouldn't be too hard to fix if that's the right thing to do. Yes, that's appropriate. It's probably just been omitted out of habit because of the similarity to mach_task_self, which is a macro that doesn't in fact add another uref. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
- mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port name?! Marcus Brinkmann
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Roland McGrath
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Marcus Brinkmann
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Roland McGrath
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Marcus Brinkmann
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Roland McGrath
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Marcus Brinkmann
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Thomas Bushnell, BSG
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Thomas Bushnell, BSG
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Marcus Brinkmann
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Thomas Bushnell, BSG
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Marcus Brinkmann
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Marcus Brinkmann
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Thomas Bushnell, BSG
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Marcus Brinkmann
- Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port na... Thomas Bushnell, BSG