Re: [PATCH] refs: release strbuf after use in check_refname_component()
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Dec 29, 2014, 21:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20141229211312.GA26793@peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq387y1hnc.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 09:37:43AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
> > ---
> > refs.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
> > index 5fcacc6..ed3b2cb 100644
> > --- a/refs.c
> > +++ b/refs.c
> > @@ -2334,7 +2334,7 @@ static struct ref_lock *lock_ref_sha1_basic(const char *refname,
> > struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
> > unable_to_lock_message(ref_file, errno, &err);
> > error("%s", err.buf);
> > - strbuf_reset(&err);
> > + strbuf_release(&err);
> > goto error_return;
> > }
> > }
>
> The subject does not seem to match what the patch is doing, but the
> patch is obviously correct ;-)The worst part of this is that I got it right in my hacked-up version:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/259853
but then after much discussion, we dropped all of the lead-in patches, and I sent Ronnie's unedited:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/259911
All that looking and I didn't notice the release/reset difference between our two versions. Sheesh.
Which is all a roundabout way of saying "yes, René's patch is obviously correct". :)
-Peff