On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 04:08:55PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> So just putting in the safety check is probably the least-disruptive
> thing. It doesn't automatically adapt to a change in the underlying
> commit_buffer code, but it would at least notice it.
Here is that commit with the check you sug
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:22:31AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Note that we also need to provide a "detach" mechanism for
> > the weird case in fsck which passes the buffer back to be
> > freed.
>
> I find that last sentence a bit of white lie ;-).
>
> The sole caller of "detach" is in inde
Jeff King writes:
> This converts two lines into one at each caller. But more
> importantly, it abstracts the concept of freeing the buffer,
> which will make it easier to change later.
>
> Note that we also need to provide a "detach" mechanism for
> the weird case in fsck which passes the buffer
This converts two lines into one at each caller. But more
importantly, it abstracts the concept of freeing the buffer,
which will make it easier to change later.
Note that we also need to provide a "detach" mechanism for
the weird case in fsck which passes the buffer back to be
freed.
Signed-off-
4 matches
Mail list logo