Notice: We have migrated to GitLab launching 2024-05-01 see here: https://gitlab.rtems.org/

Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #4212, comment 2


Ignore:
Timestamp:
01/07/21 23:54:46 (3 years ago)
Author:
Chris Johns
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #4212, comment 2

    initial v1  
    1515  rtems_filesystem_eval_path_extract_currentloc( &ctx, &iop->pathinfo );
    1616}}}
    17 ... resolve the leak? Does that create another leak and so should the code be ...
     17 ... resolve the leak? Does that create another leak and so should the code be ...
    1818{{{
    1919  rtems_filesystem_eval_path_cleanup( &ctx );
     
    2121  rtems_filesystem_eval_path_cleanup( &ctx );
    2222}}}
    23 ... ? Would fixing the copy also resolve this leak? I have no idea which of these is right solution because I do not understand how this is suppose to work.
     23 ... ? Would fixing the copy also resolve this leak? I have no idea which of these is right solution because I do not understand how this is suppose to work.
    2424
    25 2. The call `rtems_filesystem_location_copy()` does not ''free'' the resource. The only doco with this function says it is a bitwise copy yet the resource will be added to the corresponding mount. This is confusing because the resource is accounted for yet it does not perform a deep copy of the contents when the file is required to provide an interface to do this.
     252. The call `rtems_filesystem_location_copy()` does not ''free'' the resource. The only doco with this function says it is a bitwise copy yet the resource will be added to the corresponding mount. This is confusing because the resource is accounted for yet it does not perform a deep copy of the contents when the file system is required to provide an interface to do this.