From 82d6b886982236b08c9842083b63e2ccc57164ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthias Goergens Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:16:18 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] camldm/camldm_stubs.c: Tests have confirmed that camldm_ls does not leak memory. A comment in the file reflects this finding. Signed-off-by: Matthias Goergens --- camldm/camldm_stubs.c | 10 +++++++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/camldm/camldm_stubs.c b/camldm/camldm_stubs.c index ae05672..929cea6 100644 --- a/camldm/camldm_stubs.c +++ b/camldm/camldm_stubs.c @@ -238,9 +238,13 @@ void camldm_mknod(value path, value mode, value major, value minor) CAMLreturn0; } -// may leak memory. who knows? (Does the c function I copied this -// from (dmsetup.c) care about memory? dmsetup exits shortly after executing -// it. +/* + May leak memory. who knows? (Does the c function (_process_all) + where I copied this from (dmsetup.c) care about memory? dmsetup + exits shortly after executing it. After testing: It does not seem + to leak. Probably "dm_task_destroy(dmt);" is doing some cleaning + up. +*/ #define none Val_int(0) #define Tag_some Val_int(0) value camldm_ls() -- 2.39.5