On 7/14/23 17:17, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> It's specified in RFC 8415. This also avoids having to free/realloc the
>> pfd->uuid.data memory. That part was not correct anyway and was flagged
>> by ASAN as a memleak:
>>
>> Direct leak of 42 byte(s) in 3 object(s) allocated from:
>> #0 0x5
> It's specified in RFC 8415. This also avoids having to free/realloc the
> pfd->uuid.data memory. That part was not correct anyway and was flagged
> by ASAN as a memleak:
>
> Direct leak of 42 byte(s) in 3 object(s) allocated from:
> #0 0x55e5b6354c9e in malloc
> (/workspace/ovn-tmp/co
Bleep bloop. Greetings Dumitru Ceara, I am a robot and I have tried out your
patch.
Thanks for your contribution.
I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below.
checkpatch:
WARNING: Unexpected sign-offs from developers who are not authors or co-authors
or committers
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 2:44 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> On 7/14/23 14:39, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> > It's specified in RFC 8415. This also avoids having to free/realloc the
> > pfd->uuid.data memory. That part was not correct anyway and was flagged
> > by ASAN as a memleak:
> >
> > Direct leak o
On 7/14/23 14:39, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> It's specified in RFC 8415. This also avoids having to free/realloc the
> pfd->uuid.data memory. That part was not correct anyway and was flagged
> by ASAN as a memleak:
>
> Direct leak of 42 byte(s) in 3 object(s) allocated from:
> #0 0x55e5b6354
It's specified in RFC 8415. This also avoids having to free/realloc the
pfd->uuid.data memory. That part was not correct anyway and was flagged
by ASAN as a memleak:
Direct leak of 42 byte(s) in 3 object(s) allocated from:
#0 0x55e5b6354c9e in malloc
(/workspace/ovn-tmp/controller/ovn-c
