From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:56:03 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] gc: fold gc_consumer_new and gc_consumer_delete
Message-ID: <20181005085603.3obxpbgcgrhhh6ef@esperanza>
References: <cover.1538671546.git.vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
 <174ff75d6da63c095fc742a4bf857f66056e4952.1538671546.git.vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
 <20181004215004.GE22855@chai>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181004215004.GE22855@chai>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org
List-ID: <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:50:04AM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> [18/10/05 00:11]:
> > gc_consumer_new is used in one place while gc_consumer_delete is used in
> > two places, but it's a one-liner. Let's fold them to make the code flow
> > more straightforward.
> 
> Can't agree with you on unrestricted use of free(), it's a time
> bomb, please keep gc_consumer_delete().

OK I'll leave gc_consumer_delete() and add gc_checkpoint_delete(),
which will be a wrapper around free() too, in the patch that introduces
gc_checkpoint struct, for consistency.