Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > 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. So it has been a week and half since the series was posted and it seems that this is the only thing you might want to touch up. What's next? Just have an updated patch [08/23] and nothing else and be done with it? A v2 round of 23-patch series hopefully will see somebody other than Justin and I lend an extra set of eyes to double check before we merge it to 'next'? Thanks.
