From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5387202A5 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750890AbdJBGaW (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:30:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:59007 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750715AbdJBGaW (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:30:22 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A3395578; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:30:21 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=lcxrMsq1hrpAlyEIsxzeayEZ2rg=; b=x94Xgw KuN3R0Qw3BCGjoiLfW1ih/dc5JBiE9rJlmtK8rka4B+74Cyh/KN2sp2DB+NXm/NL 3rTnRF5Hi3+8cjz0MCBgUoaBIULy6fyKRoQ3hhfx8TRSJr/CdL3OsgCP2NIChHAe POeqkMpnVsABrF/IXYB3nGqOdzpOlf23+IyeQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=fouBuTQzXy0HCUmjVIOmlnv8sktems81 eXk6mtL5jruh+oa8hn/08xtpNBZydWkIzqhG7ek2uoeoQ6/Iy82OywIMmBPeJNv/ j2EyIDyPm1JDNwdDWF8G/OMhA++P8FNl1sxzrXy9T3IkwgwPyoHlnrbzAxMkT/wL rs77F+7OORo= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A90E95577; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD4B395576; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:30:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Michael Haggerty , Paul Tan , Christian Couder , =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] various lockfile-leaks and -fixes References: <20171002062252.didw7guppl4nvxry@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 15:30:19 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20171002062252.didw7guppl4nvxry@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:22:52 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2A03A7AA-A73B-11E7-BA4A-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > I've read through each and with the exception of patches 10 and 11, they > all look good to me. > > For 10 and 11, I think you've convinced me that the current behavior is > buggy. I do wonder if the subtleties might be easier to understand as a > single patch, but I'm OK either way. I found it was not too hard to understand what is going on with 10/11 as separate patches, and I suspect that it would be also OK if they were a single patch (but I cannot easily "unsee" them, so this is merely a suspicion). Thanks, both. Let's merge this to 'next' soonish.