On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Ramsay Jones
<ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> +void make_locked_paths_absolute(void)
>> +{
>> +     struct lock_file *lk;
>> +     for (lk = lock_file_list; lk != NULL; lk = lk->next) {
>> +             if (lk->filename && !is_absolute_path(lk->filename)) {
>> +                     char *to_free = lk->filename;
>> +                     lk->filename = xstrdup(absolute_path(lk->filename));
>> +                     free(to_free);
>> +             }
>> +     }
>> +}
> I just have to ask, why are we putting relative pathnames in this
> list to begin with? Why not use an absolute path when taking the
> lock in all cases? (calling absolute_path() and using the result
> to take the lock, storing it in the lock_file list, should not be
> in the critical path, right? Not that I have measured it, of course! :)

Conservative :) I'm still scared from 044bbbc (Make git_dir a path
relative to work_tree in setup_work_tree() - 2008-06-19). But yeah
looking through "grep hold_" I think none of the locks is in critical
path. absolute_path() can die() if cwd is longer than PATH_MAX (and
doing this reduces the chances of that happening). But René is adding
strbuf_getcwd() that can remove that PATH_MAX. So I guess we should be
fine with putting absolute_path() in hold_lock_file_...*
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

Reply via email to