On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:03:43PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > I noticed that recently, too. I have a patch series about 90% complete > > that abstracts the tempfile handling (the ultimate goal of which is to > > optionally clean up tmp_* files in the objects/ directory). It refactors > > the lockfile cleanup, and it would not be too hard to have a committed > > or rolled-back lockfile actually remove itself from the "to clean at > > exit" list. > > > > Which would make it perfectly safe to have a lockfile as an automatic > > variable as long as you commit or rollback before leaving the function. > > Cool, then I won't work on that. You might also have to make the > lockfile list into a doubly-linked-list to avoid having to do a linear > scan to find the entry to delete, unless the total number of entries is > known to remain small.
Yes, I noticed that potential issue, but I don't think it is worth worrying about. We typically only take one lock at a time, or a handful of tempfiles (e.g., one object at a time, or two files for diff). And once it's abstracted out, it would be easy to handle later. The part I am a little stuck on is plugging it into pack-objects/index-pack. Their output handling is a little convoluted because they may be writing to stdout, to a tempfile, to a named file, or even appending to an existing file in the case of index-pack --fix-thin. I don't think it's unmanageable, but I need to spend some more time on the refactoring. > Please CC me on the patch series when it is done. Will do. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html