From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B50E231C9F for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 22:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728081314; cv=none; b=CT0OVyK6NmFB3G1EL3+tCkBKJFg9wKaHgC+pjlpStDqqp3DNXVbJRQmMdhOKteb51SsbQu2i8mgR2IDY6TrJy17AAOR1zFUWH67i1q0B/accush7FzDthat3zKreLWb3GVyQj6q6dYal0YPTmQPreZMvB7R+WZcQOqCxKgIUvo8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728081314; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4OGkZo4dwmucNz0eOGG7yhoFjXJ3l1dw9xpyfuvQARQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=G7fGoEkUZ/jJsEzAw01jlP9w+lZ5wFpBm/wiIUEMZbla0ta+Gqbc+vZN7UOEDvlqt17UIN6zvvsgeXayj77V/PZL/utI0beIFGnU4I3f14o4mAihHQjnfp14AHC9MaS4dHA+h7nnhitms9pZnbZWGOojSx+kkY0iawcqWFFusb0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=B/LNhqxI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="B/LNhqxI" Received: (qmail 9888 invoked by uid 109); 4 Oct 2024 22:35:04 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=4OGkZo4dwmucNz0eOGG7yhoFjXJ3l1dw9xpyfuvQARQ=; b=B/LNhqxIrqGrYnEnaKd5fRSNpcZkY4xyhRGyKM14xaFBx4g6h8SsreDkMiPFnoPczA9Ta7cV2UINMb7MtXUCH+R5pcxVQyTTU70bvEFP9eQBeyAj4Gp/p72fUQGBjdsRAMGOTjeoI4wDrfD43kG942B0OgGQkGAzTsAxhWC/fcB8yf83ddq0kj0AjUBUYr/U8UNii3+e/Ix3ynP57qAuLG5dnNeCuQ+llzpNcMRxDDxNqNmtRYpnKePFenTcmMVdh90KrMKSZN4zX3QwpDo+LHatM46KQlc9NL0HWOi5kbClkmEKfQMu0djle3bd9BWP7EVfaABghc/2ZcJZgEiI8A== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Oct 2024 22:35:04 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 14487 invoked by uid 111); 4 Oct 2024 22:35:02 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 04 Oct 2024 18:35:02 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 18:35:02 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, ps@pks.im, me@ttaylorr.com, johncai86@gmail.com, newren@gmail.com, Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] pack-objects: create new name-hash algorithm Message-ID: <20241004223502.GA580885@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 02:17:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Derrick Stolee (6): > > pack-objects: add --full-name-hash option > > repack: test --full-name-hash option > > pack-objects: add GIT_TEST_FULL_NAME_HASH > > git-repack: update usage to match docs > > p5313: add size comparison test > > test-tool: add helper for name-hash values > > Recent CI jobs on 'seen' has been failing the leak-check jobs, e.g. > > https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/11184876759/job/31096601111#step:4:1886 > > shows that t5310 and t5334 are having problems. > > I randomly picked this topic and ejected it out of 'seen', and the > result is fairing a bit better. t5310 that failed 228/228 subtests > in the above run is now passing. I didn't run this topic alone > under the leak checker, so it is entirely possible that there are > some unfortunate interactions with other topics in flight. Maybe squash this into the final patch of that series? diff --git a/t/helper/test-name-hash.c b/t/helper/test-name-hash.c index 15fb8f853c..e4ecd159b7 100644 --- a/t/helper/test-name-hash.c +++ b/t/helper/test-name-hash.c @@ -19,5 +19,6 @@ int cmd__name_hash(int argc UNUSED, const char **argv UNUSED) printf("%10"PRIu32"\t%10"PRIu32"\t%s\n", name_hash, full_hash, line.buf); } + strbuf_release(&line); return 0; } That seems to be enough to clear t5310 on "seen". It was not noticed in the original topic because t5310 was not yet marked as leak-free in its base. That happened in fa016423c7 (revision: fix leaking parents when simplifying commits, 2024-09-26) -Peff