On 24/09/16 01:45PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > When `update_submodule()` fails we return with `die_message()`. > Curiously enough, this causes a memory leak because we use the > `run_process_parallel()` interfaces here, which swap out the die > routine. Naive question, is `update_submodule()` itself being run in parallel here? Is that why the die routine gets swapped out so a child process dying is handled differently? Also is it correct to say leaks are not considered when we "die" normally? > Fix the leak by freeing the remote ref. > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
