On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlb...@google.com> wrote:
>> Update replace.c to use ref transactions for updates.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlb...@google.com>
>> ---
>> builtin/replace.c | 14 ++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/replace.c b/builtin/replace.c
>> index b62420a..b037b29 100644
>> --- a/builtin/replace.c
>> +++ b/builtin/replace.c
>> @@ -129,7 +129,8 @@ static int replace_object(const char *object_ref, const
>> char *replace_ref,
>> unsigned char object[20], prev[20], repl[20];
>> enum object_type obj_type, repl_type;
>> char ref[PATH_MAX];
>> - struct ref_lock *lock;
>> + struct ref_transaction *transaction;
>> + struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
>>
>> if (get_sha1(object_ref, object))
>> die("Failed to resolve '%s' as a valid ref.", object_ref);
>> @@ -157,11 +158,12 @@ static int replace_object(const char *object_ref,
>> const char *replace_ref,
>> else if (!force)
>> die("replace ref '%s' already exists", ref);
>>
>> - lock = lock_any_ref_for_update(ref, prev, 0, NULL);
>> - if (!lock)
>> - die("%s: cannot lock the ref", ref);
>> - if (write_ref_sha1(lock, repl, NULL) < 0)
>> - die("%s: cannot update the ref", ref);
>> + transaction = ref_transaction_begin();
>> + if (!transaction ||
>> + ref_transaction_update(transaction, ref, repl, prev,
>> + 0, !is_null_sha1(prev)) ||
>> + ref_transaction_commit(transaction, NULL, &err))
>> + die(_("%s: failed to replace ref: %s"), ref, err.buf);
>
> Even though 'err' will be empty after this conditional, would
> strbuf_release(&err) here be warranted to future-proof it? Today's
> implementation of strbuf will not have allocated any memory, but
> perhaps a future change might pre-allocate (unlikely though that is),
> which would leak here.
Thanks.
I have no strong feelings either way.
A previous patch got a comment to remove a strbuf_release() because we
knew in that
code path that the string would be empty and thus the call was superfluous.
So one for and one against so far.
I will leave as is until there is more consensus.
>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> --
>> 1.9.1.528.g98b8868.dirty
--
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
