Closed Bug 533079 Opened 15 years ago Closed 15 years ago

Stream loader should use exposed allocator to provide adoptable memory

Categories

(Core :: Networking, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
Networking
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
trivial

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
status1.9.2 --- final-fixed

People

(Reporter: neil, Assigned: neil)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: [can land 1.9.2])

Attachments

(2 files)

Proposed patch
(deleted), patch
Biesinger
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Interdiff in patch format
(deleted), patch
Biesinger
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 507970 allowed the stream loader's observer to adopt the stream loader's memory, but that memory is not allocated with a recognised allocator.
Attached patch Proposed patch (deleted) — — Splinter Review
Assignee: nobody → neil
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #416257 - Flags: review?(cbiesinger)
Yikes - I'm horrified, this means that what was landed for bug 507970 was not the correct "final" version of the nsStreamLoader patch. Clearly I goofed with Mercurial in some way. :( This will need to go on 1.9.2 as well, the same error is there.
Comment on attachment 416257 [details] [diff] [review] Proposed patch Oh, that explains why I didn't know that the stream loader allowed the caller to adopt the buffer... because that's new! ;)
Attachment #416257 - Flags: review?(cbiesinger) → review+
Flags: blocking1.9.2?
Ah, so I take it that what we actually want to land is this interdiff: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?oldid=400443&action=interdiff&newid=400543&headers=1
Attached patch Interdiff in patch format (deleted) — — Splinter Review
So, what flags do we need here?
Assuming this has test coverage (woff reftests?) and that it's green after landing on trunk, I think you should just land this on the branch using the original a=shaver from bug 507970.
Flags: blocking1.9.2? → blocking1.9.2+
Pushed changeset edbc04b96cdc to mozilla-central.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Is this branch safe? Any reason we're not landing this on 1.9.2 yet?
Whiteboard: [can land 1.9.2]
(In reply to comment #8) > Is this branch safe? Any reason we're not landing this on 1.9.2 yet? Sorry, I was originally waiting for this to cycle on trunk first, and then I was too busy to follow up with the branch checkin. I'll check this in ASAP.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: