On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 05:30:33PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> Some pieces of libvirt currently assume that the vir*Destroy
> functions will free the passed object upon success. In
> practice none of the current drivers seem to do this,
> resulting in memory leaks.
>
> The attached patch fixes t
Cole Robinson wrote:
> Some pieces of libvirt currently assume that the vir*Destroy
> functions will free the passed object upon success. In
> practice none of the current drivers seem to do this,
> resulting in memory leaks.
>
> The attached patch fixes the leaks I could find, as well as
> change
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:48:27AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 05:30:33PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > Some pieces of libvirt currently assume that the vir*Destroy
> > functions will free the passed object upon success. In
> > practice none of the current drivers s
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 05:30:33PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> Some pieces of libvirt currently assume that the vir*Destroy
> functions will free the passed object upon success. In
> practice none of the current drivers seem to do this,
> resulting in memory leaks.
>
> The attached patch fixes t
Some pieces of libvirt currently assume that the vir*Destroy
functions will free the passed object upon success. In
practice none of the current drivers seem to do this,
resulting in memory leaks.
The attached patch fixes the leaks I could find, as well as
changes the comments for virDomainDestroy
