From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:08:40 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/35] transport: use get_refs_via_connect to get refs
Message-ID: <20180227060840.GD65699@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180207011312.189834-7-bmwill@google.com>

Brandon Williams wrote:

> Remove code duplication and use the existing 'get_refs_via_connect()'
> function to retrieve a remote's heads in 'fetch_refs_via_pack()' and
> 'git_transport_push()'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>
> ---
>  transport.c | 18 ++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

I like the diffstat.

[...]
> +++ b/transport.c
> @@ -230,12 +230,8 @@ static int fetch_refs_via_pack(struct transport *transport,
>  	args.cloning = transport->cloning;
>  	args.update_shallow = data->options.update_shallow;
>  
> -	if (!data->got_remote_heads) {
> -		connect_setup(transport, 0);
> -		get_remote_heads(data->fd[0], NULL, 0, &refs_tmp, 0,
> -				 NULL, &data->shallow);
> -		data->got_remote_heads = 1;
> -	}
> +	if (!data->got_remote_heads)
> +		refs_tmp = get_refs_via_connect(transport, 0);

The only difference between the old and new code is that the old code
passes NULL as 'extra_have' and the new code passes &data->extra_have.

That means this populates the data->extra_have oid_array.  Does it
matter?

> @@ -541,14 +537,8 @@ static int git_transport_push(struct transport *transport, struct ref *remote_re
>  	struct send_pack_args args;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	if (!data->got_remote_heads) {
> -		struct ref *tmp_refs;
> -		connect_setup(transport, 1);
> -
> -		get_remote_heads(data->fd[0], NULL, 0, &tmp_refs, REF_NORMAL,
> -				 NULL, &data->shallow);
> -		data->got_remote_heads = 1;
> -	}
> +	if (!data->got_remote_heads)
> +		get_refs_via_connect(transport, 1);

not a new problem, just curious: Does this leak tmp_refs?

Same question as the other caller about whether we mind getting
extra_have populated.

Thanks,
Jonathan