From: "René Scharfe" <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] unpack-trees: free cache_entry array members for merges
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:40:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51A764CE.4000708@lsrfire.ath.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2=YuBLHgz52ie-FZYU5iz4o4tY0-zH+6XuzpiupjomLA@mail.gmail.com>
Am 30.05.2013 14:04, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:34 AM, René Scharfe
> <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:
>> The merge functions duplicate entries as needed and they don't free
>> them. Release them in unpack_nondirectories, the same function
>> where they were allocated, after we're done.
>
> Ah, you beat me to this change, but..
>
>> @@ -600,9 +600,14 @@ static int unpack_nondirectories(int n, unsigned long mask,
>> src[i + o->merge] = create_ce_entry(info, names + i, stage);
>> }
>>
>> - if (o->merge)
>> - return call_unpack_fn((const struct cache_entry * const *)src,
>> - o);
>> + if (o->merge) {
>> + int rc = call_unpack_fn((const struct cache_entry * const *)src,
>> + o);
>> + for (i = 1; i <= n; i++)
>> + if (src[i] && src[i] != o->df_conflict_entry)
>> + free(src[i]);
>
> Doesn't it make more sense to follow the code above and do src[i + o->merge]?
Not sure I understand. Is the goal to avoid confusion for code readers
by using the same indexing method for allocation and release? Or are
you worried about o->merge having a different value than 1 in that loop?
We'd have to add 1 (== o->merge) to each index variable usage with a
zero-based loop. A one-based loop avoids that, and while it's not
pretty it's also not too complicated, I think.
René
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-30 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-30 11:34 [PATCH 0/7] unpack-trees: plug memory leak for merges René Scharfe
2013-05-30 11:34 ` [PATCH 1/7] cache: mark cache_entry pointers const René Scharfe
2013-05-30 11:34 ` [PATCH 2/7] read-cache: " René Scharfe
2013-05-30 11:34 ` [PATCH 3/7] unpack-trees: factor out dup_entry René Scharfe
2013-06-04 15:06 ` Peter Krefting
2013-05-30 11:34 ` [PATCH 4/7] unpack-trees: create working copy of merge entry in merged_entry René Scharfe
2013-05-30 11:34 ` [PATCH 5/7] diff-lib, read-tree, unpack-trees: mark cache_entry pointers const René Scharfe
2013-05-30 11:34 ` [PATCH 6/7] diff-lib, read-tree, unpack-trees: mark cache_entry array paramters const René Scharfe
2013-05-30 11:34 ` [PATCH 7/7] unpack-trees: free cache_entry array members for merges René Scharfe
2013-05-30 12:04 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-05-30 14:40 ` René Scharfe [this message]
2013-05-30 15:20 ` Felipe Contreras
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51A764CE.4000708@lsrfire.ath.cx \
--to=rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx \
--cc=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.