On 9/8/2022 12:52 AM, Jeff King wrote: > The test I sent earlier in [1] fails the linux-leaks CI job, not because > it introduces new leaks, but just because it runs existing leaks in a > test marked as passing-leaks. > > Of course we can drop the passing flag, but I figured it would probably > be an easy fix. Famous last words. It turned into quite a rabbit hole of > actual leaks (albeit small and bounded per process) and some > questionable memory ownership semantics. Reading the patches, you make good arguments about the various trade- offs in these sticky places. I agree with you in all cases, mostly because the alternatives would not be any better unless we did a _lot_ of work to rewrite a lot more code than these patches. Even then, the benefit is unclear. > Here's the series I came up with. I'm cc-ing Stolee as the last person > unfortunate enough to have touched this area. :) Lucky me! These patches look good. Thanks! -Stolee
