Re: [PATCH 12/22] delete_ref_loose(): don't muck around in the lock_file's filename

[Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>]

On 04/01/2014 10:21 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:58:20PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> 
>> It's bad manners.  Especially since, if unlink_or_warn() failed, the
>> memory wasn't restored to its original contents.
>>
>> So make our own copy to work with.
> 
> Sounds good...
> 
>>  	if (!(flag & REF_ISPACKED) || flag & REF_ISSYMREF) {
>> -		/* loose */
>> -		int err, i = strlen(lock->lk->filename) - 5; /* .lock */
>> -
>> -		lock->lk->filename[i] = 0;
>> -		err = unlink_or_warn(lock->lk->filename);
>> -		lock->lk->filename[i] = '.';
>> +		/*
>> +		 * loose.  The loose file name is the same as the
>> +		 * lockfile name, minus ".lock":
>> +		 */
>> +		char *loose_filename = xmemdupz(lock->lk->filename,
>> +						strlen(lock->lk->filename) - 5);
>> +		int err = unlink_or_warn(loose_filename);
>> +		free(loose_filename);
> 
> Should we be using LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN from the previous commit here?

LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN is not in scope to this file, and I think it should stay
that way.  But never fear; this figuring-out-filename-from-lockfile-name
nonsense is gone by the end of the patch series.

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/