David Young wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:46:42PM -0500, David Young wrote:
>> It has always bugged me that rtalloc() can potentially overwrite ro->ro_rt
>> when ro_rt != NULL, without first RTFREE()'ing ro_rt.  Will anybody object
>> if I rewrite rtalloc() in this way, and check it in?  I will take the
>> printf out just as soon as anyone sees it, but I do want to see if the
>> memory leak that the old code logically implies does actually happen in
>> the wild.
>>
>> I have in mind some other changes to rtalloc().  More on that, later.
>>
> 
> Same code, slightly shorter:
> 
> /*
>  * Packet routing routines.
>  */
> void
> rtalloc(struct route *ro)
> {
>         if (ro->ro_rt != NULL) {
>                 if (ro->ro_rt->rt_ifp != NULL &&
>                     (ro->ro_rt->rt_flags & RTF_UP) != 0)
>                         return;
>                 printf("%s: freeing ro_rt\n", __func__);
>                 RTFREE(ro->ro_rt);
>         }
>         ro->ro_rt = rtalloc1(&ro->ro_dst, 1);
> }

I prefer this version. It's more easily read.
I have no problems with the check in.