[torquedev] pbm_mom segfault in TMomCheckJobChild
jbernstein at penguincomputing.com
Mon Dec 22 12:23:02 MST 2008
Glen Beane wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Joshua Bernstein
> <jbernstein at penguincomputing.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Glen Beane wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Glen Beane <glen.beane at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Joshua Bernstein
>>>> <jbernstein at penguincomputing.com> wrote:
>>>>> Garrick Staples wrote:
>>>>>> After investigating both patches yesterday, I have to conclude that
>>>>>> neither is
>>>>>> of merit. The close_conn() should never do the right thing, and the
>>>>>> '&&' in this context is perfectly valid.
>>>>> Fair enough. But why is close(i) used there, when apparently in the
>>>>> its been corrected to close_conn()? Further close_conn() is used
>>>>> in many other similar functions, thus it seems like a valid fix.
>>>> I would *not* assume 2.4.0 is correct.
>> Thats interesting to me. I would expect a later version of the code to be
>> more correct then an older version.
> yes, one would expect that. :) But I'm not so sure I trust 2.4.0
> as much as 2.3.x at this point. 2.4.0 has had some major changes and
> is still undergoing changes, some of which may not be heavily tested
> In this specific case, the change was made on September 4th, and the
> svn comment says "improved code by eliminating code duplication" -
> this was the only change to this file for this particular commit. So
> the change to close_conn() in the 2.4 branch does not appear to be in
> an attempt to fix a bug or make the code more correct, it is an
> attempt to remove some duplicate code, but in fact it could introduce
> a bug considering that it looks like close_conn() won't do anything in
> this case.
I don't think its introducing a bug because it is not set this way in
2.3.x and 2.1.9, or at the very least, its not introducing the bug that
More information about the torquedev