Re: 20080207-squid3-nonzero-buffers.diff

> Updated patch:
>
> http://www.creative.net.au/diffs/20080207-squid3-nonzero-buffers-2.diff
>
> doZeroOnPush can't be private as it then seems to be inaccessible from
> MemPool::push().
>

Try setting up a friend' relationship between MemPool and MemAllocator
classes. Or creating an inline accessor.

Amos

>
>
> Adrian
>
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> Adrian,
>>
>> A few comments regarding the nonzero patch you posted on IRC:
>> http://www.creative.net.au/diffs/20080207-squid3-nonzero-buffers.diff
>>
>> First of all, it is a move in the right direction, of course. If you
>> verified that it works, it can be committed as is. Here are a few
>> nitpicks since you asked for comments:
>>
>> - Replace "dontZeroMe()" with "zeroOnPush(bool doIt)" because negative
>> names are confusing and because we are not zeroing the object ("this" or
>> "me"), but the memory we push into it.
>>
>> - Remove virtual from dontZeroMe(). Makes folks look hard for
>> extensions, etc.
>>
>> - Make zeroBuffer private. Alternatively, make it public and remove the
>> set method. Protected data members cause weird C++ problems,
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> - Rename zeroBuffer to doZeroOnPush so that the association with the set
>> method is clear and the purpose is more precise.
>>
>> - Remove memDataNonZero() if possible. It do nothing new and we need
>> fewer globals.
>>
>> - Consider adding boolean aZeroOnPush parameter to memDataInit(), with
>> false as the default value.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>
> --
> - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid
> Support -
> - $25/pm entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in WA -
>
Received on Wed Feb 06 2008 - 19:22:03 MST