On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:21 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This abstraction added in 1214aa841bc (reftable: add blocksource, an
> abstraction for random access reads, 2021-10-07) has the caller
> provide a "blockp->data", so there's not point in having the vtable
> have a custom free() function.
>
> In addition this had what looked like a poor man's SANITIZE=address
> doing a memset() to 0xff just before the data was free'd.
> void reftable_block_done(struct reftable_block *blockp)
> {
> - struct reftable_block_source source = blockp->source;
> - if (blockp && source.ops)
> - source.ops->return_block(source.arg, blockp);
> + FREE_AND_NULL(blockp->data);
My thinking here is that we could mmap the reftable file to do reads.
In that case, discarding the block would imply decreasing a refcount
somewhere, rather than deallocating memory.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich
I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays.
