From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:21:18 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/22] delete_ref_loose(): don't muck around in the lock_file's filename
Message-ID: <20140401202118.GG21715@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1396367910-7299-13-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu>

On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:58:20PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:

> It's bad manners.  Especially since, if unlink_or_warn() failed, the
> memory wasn't restored to its original contents.
> 
> So make our own copy to work with.

Sounds good...

>  	if (!(flag & REF_ISPACKED) || flag & REF_ISSYMREF) {
> -		/* loose */
> -		int err, i = strlen(lock->lk->filename) - 5; /* .lock */
> -
> -		lock->lk->filename[i] = 0;
> -		err = unlink_or_warn(lock->lk->filename);
> -		lock->lk->filename[i] = '.';
> +		/*
> +		 * loose.  The loose file name is the same as the
> +		 * lockfile name, minus ".lock":
> +		 */
> +		char *loose_filename = xmemdupz(lock->lk->filename,
> +						strlen(lock->lk->filename) - 5);
> +		int err = unlink_or_warn(loose_filename);
> +		free(loose_filename);

Should we be using LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN from the previous commit here?

-Peff