You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@apr.apache.org by rp...@apache.org on 2009/04/03 15:13:26 UTC
svn commit: r761662 - /apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c
Author: rpluem
Date: Fri Apr 3 13:13:26 2009
New Revision: 761662
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=761662&view=rev
Log:
* Correctly setup size field for the final_blocks field.
Modified:
apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c
Modified: apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c?rev=761662&r1=761661&r2=761662&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c (original)
+++ apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c Fri Apr 3 13:13:26 2009
@@ -825,6 +825,7 @@
pool->blocks = &pool->final_block;
pool->blocks->offset = 0;
pool->blocks->next = NULL;
+ pool->blocks->size = BLOCK_LIST_ENTRIES_MIN;
pool->cleanups = NULL;
(void)apr_thread_mutex_create(&pool->mutex,
APR_THREAD_MUTEX_NESTED, pool);
Re: svn commit: r761662 - /apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
rpluem@apache.org wrote:
> Author: rpluem
> Date: Fri Apr 3 13:13:26 2009
> New Revision: 761662
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=761662&view=rev
> Log:
> * Correctly setup size field for the final_blocks field.
>
> Modified:
> apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c
>
> Modified: apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c?rev=761662&r1=761661&r2=761662&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c (original)
> +++ apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c Fri Apr 3 13:13:26 2009
> @@ -825,6 +825,7 @@
> pool->blocks = &pool->final_block;
> pool->blocks->offset = 0;
> pool->blocks->next = NULL;
> + pool->blocks->size = BLOCK_LIST_ENTRIES_MIN;
Right.
However the entire final_block is complete waste of
space if the pool wasn't created explicitly with it's own
allocator using apr_pool_create_ex.
And the sole purpose of it is to allocate the mutex.
Since mutex creation calls few apr_palloc an
additional malloc for making the block_lists dynamic
would make no difference.
Regards
--
^(TM)