On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:05:19AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:06:04PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 03:42:32PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [...]
> >> >
> >> >> static int multifd_send_page(uint8_t *address)
> >> >> {
> >> >> - int i;
> >> >> + int i, j;
> >> >> MultiFDSendParams *p = NULL; /* make happy gcc */
> >> >> + static multifd_pages_t pages;
> >> >> + static bool once;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + if (!once) {
> >> >> + multifd_init_group(&pages);
> >> >> + once = true;
> >> >
> >> > Would it be good to put the "pages" into multifd_send_state? One is to
> >> > stick globals together; another benefit is that we can remove the
> >> > "once" here: we can then init the "pages" when init multifd_send_state
> >> > struct (but maybe with a better name?...).
> >>
> >> I did to be able to free it.
> >
> > Free it? But they a static variables, then how can we free them?
> >
> > (I thought the only way to free it is putting it into
> > multifd_send_state...)
> >
> > Something I must have missed here. :(
>
> I did the change that you suggested in response to a comment from Dave
> that asked where I freed it. I see that my sentence was ambigous.
Oh! Then it's clear now. Thanks!
(Sorry I may have missed some of the emails in the threads)
--
Peter Xu
