#define update_zmalloc_stat_alloc(__n) do { \ size_t _n = (__n); \ if (_n&(sizeof(long)-1)) _n += sizeof(long)-(_n&(sizeof(long)-1)); \ atomicIncr(used_memory,__n); \ } while(0)

It will be expanded as do { size_t _n = (malloc_size(ptr)); if (_n&(sizeof(long)-1)) _n += sizeof(long)-(_n&(sizeof(long)-1)); atomicIncr(&used_memory,malloc_size(ptr)); } while(0); Should it be atomicIncr(used_memory,_n)?

Comment From: BotaoDu

I have the same doubts

Comment From: yeefea

The redundant code is removed in this commit. This issue can be closed. @antirez

Comment From: oranagra

thanks @Blueswing, i think using _n would be a bug. instead, it was just some dead code.