On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:19:38PM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (vsement...@virtuozzo.com) wrote:
> > 28.12.2017 05:19, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 03:25:23PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi all!
> > > >
> > >
* Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (vsement...@virtuozzo.com) wrote:
> 28.12.2017 05:19, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 03:25:23PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> > wrote:
> > > Hi all!
> > >
> > > Hmm, looks like leak is not fixed here: I've checked it while running
> > > iotest
28.12.2017 05:19, Peter Xu wrote:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 03:25:23PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all!
Hmm, looks like leak is not fixed here: I've checked it while running iotest
181, that
migration_instance_finalize is not called.
If I understand correct, to call it we need
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 03:25:23PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Hmm, looks like leak is not fixed here: I've checked it while running iotest
> 181, that
> migration_instance_finalize is not called.
>
> If I understand correct, to call it we need unref current_migration
Hi all!
Hmm, looks like leak is not fixed here: I've checked it while running
iotest 181, that
migration_instance_finalize is not called.
If I understand correct, to call it we need unref current_migration
object somewhere.
Or, may be I'm missing something..
01.08.2017 19:04, Marc-André Lu
* Marc-André Lureau (marcandre.lur...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Spotted thanks to valgrind and tests/device-introspect-test:
>
> ==11711== 1 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 6 of 14,537
> ==11711==at 0x4C2EB6B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
> ==11711==by 0x1E0CDBD8: g_mal
Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Spotted thanks to valgrind and tests/device-introspect-test:
>
> ==11711== 1 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 6 of 14,537
> ==11711==at 0x4C2EB6B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
> ==11711==by 0x1E0CDBD8: g_malloc (gmem.c:94)
> ==11711==b
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:04:18PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Spotted thanks to valgrind and tests/device-introspect-test:
>
> ==11711== 1 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 6 of 14,537
> ==11711==at 0x4C2EB6B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
> ==11711==by 0x1E0CD
Spotted thanks to valgrind and tests/device-introspect-test:
==11711== 1 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 6 of 14,537
==11711==at 0x4C2EB6B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
==11711==by 0x1E0CDBD8: g_malloc (gmem.c:94)
==11711==by 0x1E0E696E: g_strdup (gstrfuncs.c:3
