From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37570) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XCaAh-0006LY-7R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:08:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XCaAa-00059A-H4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:08:23 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61381) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XCaAa-00058o-Af for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:08:16 -0400 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6UK8E5h007151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:08:15 -0400 Message-ID: <53D950AB.7070409@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:08:11 +0200 From: Max Reitz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1406402531-9278-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <1406402531-9278-4-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <53D90818.4010901@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53D90818.4010901@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH alt 3/7] qemu-img: Fix insignifcant memleak List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi On 30.07.2014 16:58, Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/26/2014 01:22 PM, Max Reitz wrote: >> As soon as options is set in img_amend(), it needs to be freed before >> the function returns. This leak is rather insignifcant, as qemu-img will > s/insignifcant/insignificant/ I wonder how I was able to get it wrong the same way twice... >> exit subsequently anyway, but there's no point in not fixing it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz >> --- >> qemu-img.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > 1-3 look the same as in the other version of this series, so no further > comments on them. I'll try and review both series to see if either one > makes more sense as being more desirable. Thank you, Max