Hi
> Really, this was only _one_ quick example of which there are numerous in your
> code. Look at all CALLOC/MALLOC calls. Most of them are not safe.
the code is plenty of those, a quick wingrep shows at least those:
ib-vers.c lines 422, 1648, 1801, 2322
socket.c lines 285 and 866
common-utils.c line 77
logging.c lines 508, 572, 586
scheduler.c line 69
transport.c line 184
inode.c line 399
xlator.c line 750
authenticate.c line 96
booster_fstab.c line 228
libglusterfsclient.c lines 94, 2253, 2256, 7644
and probably even more (no more time to spend on it, sorry)
> Look at your documentation. It is quite a mess.
that's absolutely right, lots of references to unify when it's
deprecated or using different names for the same translator
(afr/replicate), etc ... but i have to say that those last days
it looks like it has been improving
>> Talking about analogy, in a car assume that engine is the glusterfs
>> and tyres the kernel. If you get flat tyres and the car doesn't move
>> you can't blame the engine!
>
> Boy, you really entered cloud nr 9. To bring your example down to reality I'd
> rather suggest the kernel being the engine and and glusterfs being the rear
> view mirror. The car can live without, nice to have one though.
well, one have to say that it could be a more important part of the
system, at least it is for us, and that if we are all using glusterfs is
because we like it (and that's also because we post here our problems
with glusterfs instead of ignoring them)
--
Best regards ...
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Saez Padros http://www.ols.es
On-Line Services 2000 S.L. telf +34 902 50 29 75
----------------------------------------------------------------
