Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 09/29/2010 11:20 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> chk_list_objs called fs_list_objs_open without also calling
>> fs_list_objs_close.
>>
>> 32,808 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 413 of 419
>> at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
>> by
On 09/29/2010 11:20 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
chk_list_objs called fs_list_objs_open without also calling
fs_list_objs_close.
32,808 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 413 of 419
at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
by 0x31BA8A26D0: __alloc_dir (opendir.c:1
On 09/29/2010 11:20 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
chk_list_objs called fs_list_objs_open without also calling
fs_list_objs_close.
32,808 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 413 of 419
at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
by 0x31BA8A26D0: __alloc_dir (opendir.c:1
chk_list_objs called fs_list_objs_open without also calling
fs_list_objs_close.
32,808 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 413 of 419
at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
by 0x31BA8A26D0: __alloc_dir (opendir.c:184)
by 0x405619: fs_list_objs_open (be-fs.c:9