From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/21] remote: let guess_remote_head() optionally return all matches Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:37:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20090226143729.GA9693@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Jay Soffian X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 26 15:39:28 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LchOB-0005vW-Tk for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:39:04 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752969AbZBZOhe (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:37:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752610AbZBZOhe (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:37:34 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:41410 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751720AbZBZOhd (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:37:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 5161 invoked by uid 107); 26 Feb 2009 14:37:57 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:37:57 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:37:29 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 03:32:15AM -0500, Jay Soffian wrote: > +struct ref *copy_ref_with_peer(const struct ref *src) > +{ > + struct ref *dst = copy_ref(src); > + dst->peer_ref = copy_ref(src->peer_ref); > + return dst; > +} Hmm. This should probably be: dst->peer_ref = src->peer_ref ? copy_ref(src->peer_ref) : NULL; (or copy_ref should return NULL when given NULL). I also wonder if the copied ref's peer_ref should be explicitly NULL'd. I don't think it matters for the current code, since we always feed it "matched refs" which have a peer, but I think it is good to be a little more defensive in such a generically-named function. And yes, this bug was in my original patch. :) -Peff