The idea behind Dovecot's memory allocations is that you shouldn't
have to go through all the trouble of doing lots of memory frees.
Because 1) it's easy to cause memory leaks then, 2) it requires more code and
makes it uglier, 3) possibly increases memory fragmentation.So with memory pools you just allocate all the memory from the pool
and finally simply free the pool. That takes care of all these 1-3)
issues. It could use slightly more memory, but especially for these kind of short living allocations it really doesn't matter.Than I don't really see the problem with the current code -- I understand that all the memory it uses (with i_strdup and friends) is allocated from the default pool, which I assume will be freed eventually.
Well, "default pool" isn't really a proper memory pool.
p_malloc(default_pool) = p_malloc(system_pool) = i_malloc() =
calloc(). It will only get freed when the process is killed.
If the goal of an dedicated pool is to free the memory early the code using the auth-master API will have to allocate and free this pool, I don't see the advantage here... But then, on a second thought I _do_ see the advantage of a consistent way to do things like this. ;-)
I was thinking something like:
pool = pool_alloconly_create("userdb lookup", 512); auth_master_lookup(auth, pool, &reply); // do stuff with reply pool_unref(&pool);
Or I suppose auth_master_init() could allocate the pool internally and
call p_clear() at the beginning of each lookup. Hmm.
Btw, on dedicated vs. default resources, I wasn't quite sure if it
was a good idea to use the default ioloop. Any thoughts on that?For deliver it doesn't matter, but for imap you really should
create a new ioloop or things will probably break.Yes, I know (already made this mistake)... ;-) The question is, should the ioloop be an extra argument to auth_master_init?
I don't think there's any benefit in doing that.