On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 01:51:21PM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote: > 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? Hm. Revisiting this patch: my analysis was wrong. It's not the parallel subsystem that swaps out `die()`, but it's the fact that we call `die_message()`, which actually doesn't die. It really only prints the message you would see when we call `die()`, nothing more. I'll amend the commit message and send out the amended version once there is more feedback to address. Patrick
