Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] object store: alloc

2018-05-10 Thread Stefan Beller
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > On Thu, 10 May 2018 10:32:09 -0700 > Stefan Beller wrote: > >> > - I would call them release_commit() and release_tag(), to match >> >strbuf_release(). >> >> Why not commit_release and tag_release to also have the same order >> of words

Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] object store: alloc

2018-05-10 Thread Jonathan Tan
On Thu, 10 May 2018 10:32:09 -0700 Stefan Beller wrote: > > - I would call them release_commit() and release_tag(), to match > >strbuf_release(). > > Why not commit_release and tag_release to also have the same order > of words as in strbuf_release ? At this point in the discussion, either

Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] object store: alloc

2018-05-10 Thread Stefan Beller
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:40:11 -0700 > Stefan Beller wrote: > >> if (obj->type == OBJ_TREE) >> - release_tree_node((struct tree*)obj); >> + free_tree_buffer((struct tree*)obj); >>

Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] object store: alloc

2018-05-10 Thread Jonathan Tan
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:40:11 -0700 Stefan Beller wrote: > if (obj->type == OBJ_TREE) > - release_tree_node((struct tree*)obj); > + free_tree_buffer((struct tree*)obj); > else if (obj->type == OBJ_COMMIT) > - r

[PATCH v4 00/13] object store: alloc

2018-05-09 Thread Stefan Beller
v4: * address the memory issues, an interdiff is below. v3: * I used the (soon to be renamed?) branch-diff tool to attach a diff below between v2 and v3 * fixed comment in patch 1 * correctly free objects and its hashmap in the last patch. * drop free'ing the commit->util pointer as we do n