This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 12, 2019. It is now read-only.
prefetcher: avoid mem leaks by not storing block in request #1988
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
All we need it for is to generate a new block, so just keep the function for making the new block instead. Issue: #1958
So the prefetcher can get a new block function without holding a reference to the block that supplied it. Issue: #1958
|
@jzila i changed this around a bit because I was worried that keeping around |
jzila
approved these changes
Dec 20, 2018
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We don't actually use the contents of the block in the request; we only use it to generate a new block. So just store the function for generating the new block instead, to be more explicit.
Also, don't pass the same block used to make that function to the
Request()function, which fills in the block. I suspect that was a memory leak.Issue: #1958