On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 07:24:18PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> > And from that point of view, doesn't split_head_update() wants a
> > similar fix? It attempts to insert "HEAD", makes sure it hasn't
> > been inserted and then hangs a new update transaction as its util.
> > It is not wrong per-se from purely leak-prevention point of view,
> > as that "HEAD" is a literal string we woudn't even want to free,
> > but from logical/"what each data means" point of view, it still
> > feels wrong.
>
> There is a "Special hack" comment related to this, and I don't feel
> particularly confident that I could make any meaningful contribution in
> this area. To be honest, I don't immediately see in which direction your
> suggestion/idea/thought is going, which tells me I should not be making
> a mess out of it. :-)
I noticed the HEAD funniness, too, when looking at this earlier. I agree
with Junio that it's not quite consistent with the general rule of
"string list items point to their refnames", but I don't think it
matters in practice.
I think the fix, if we wanted to do one, would be similar to what you
did in split_symref_update(). Like:
diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c
index f3455609d6..3f9deff902 100644
--- a/refs/files-backend.c
+++ b/refs/files-backend.c
@@ -2095,8 +2095,7 @@ static int split_head_update(struct ref_update *update,
* transaction. This insertion is O(N) in the transaction
* size, but it happens at most once per transaction.
*/
- item = string_list_insert(affected_refnames, "HEAD");
- if (item->util) {
+ if (string_list_has_string(affected_refnames, "HEAD")) {
/* An entry already existed */
strbuf_addf(err,
"multiple updates for 'HEAD' (including one "
@@ -2111,6 +2110,7 @@ static int split_head_update(struct ref_update *update,
update->new_oid.hash, update->old_oid.hash,
update->msg);
+ item = string_list_insert(affected_refnames, new_update->refname);
item->util = new_update;
return 0;
-Peff
