Andrew Chernow wrote:
>>
>> Attached is a mix of our two patches. How does that look to you?
>>
>
> looks good.
The next obvious question is, is this something we care to backpatch (at
this point, 8.4 is considered backpatch from that perspective), or
should we hold for 8.5?
The only issue now is a small leak of memory in a function that is only
called a fixed (and very small) number of times per process. Given this,
I'm inclined to say we should put it on hold for 8.5. Thoughts?
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
