rgw: eradicate dynamic memory allocation in RGWWriteRequest.

[rzarzynski]

It would be really nice to have Boost 1.56 that brought boost::optional::emplace().

CC: @mattbenjamin.

[cbodley]

is this really needed? does boost::optional try to call RGWPutObjProcessor_Atomic::operator=() otherwise?

[cbodley]

@rzarzynski have you looked at RGWPutObj::execute()? would the same strategy work there?

changing it now would cause conflicts with #10932, but we should get that eventually

[rzarzynski]

@cbodley: I'm afraid that for RGWPutObj::execute() we would need static_ptr to handle the polymorphism. The RGWPutObj instantiates RGWPutObjProcessor_Atomic or RGWPutObjProcessor_Multipart depending on the multipart variable.

[yehudasa]

@cbodley ping

[ghost]

jenkins test this please (no logs)

[cbodley]

@rzarzynski should be able to use optional::emplace() here now?

[rzarzynski]

@cbodley: yep, we should be perfectly able to do the switch now. I will send the update soon.

[rzarzynski]

@cbodley, @mattbenjamin: fixed the commit and switched to boost::optional::emplace.

[mattbenjamin]

@rzarzynski I'm fine with using this strategy here, will test

[rzarzynski]

@mattbenjamin: thanks! :-)

[oritwas]

@rzarzynski please rebase

[yehudasa]

@rzarzynski what's the status of this one?

[code-with-amitk]

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/SubmittingPatches.rst#title-of-pull-requests-and-title-of-commits

[stale]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.
If you are a maintainer or core committer, please follow-up on this issue to identify what steps should be taken by the author to move this proposed change forward.
If you are the author of this pull request, thank you for your proposed contribution. If you believe this change is still appropriate, please ensure that any feedback has been addressed and ask for a code review.

[cbodley]

see #24453