From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 058392DC28 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0uffTP711ccy for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:27:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp57.i.mail.ru (smtp57.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id B95962DBAF for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:27:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by smtp57.i.mail.ru with esmtpa (envelope-from ) id 1hLFgX-0008SP-0v for tarantool-patches@freelists.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 02:27:45 +0300 Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 1/1] test: drop invalid assert from swim test transport From: Vladislav Shpilevoy References: <906fb352f231ce3c2f22a176f04d42649d180dda.1556579734.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 02:27:44 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <906fb352f231ce3c2f22a176f04d42649d180dda.1556579734.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org Pushed to the master as trivial. On 30/04/2019 02:27, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: > The assertion was checking that a next event object is not the > same as the previous, but > > 1) the previous was deleted already to this moment; > 2) comparison was done by pointer > > The first problem would be enough to drop it. The second is > already curious - looks like after the old event was deleted, > the next event was allocated right on the same memory. This is > why their pointers are equal and the assertion fails. > > For example, swim_timer_event_process() - it deletes the event > object and calls ev_invoke() which can generate a new event on > the just freed memory.