Re: [PATCH 1/3] leak tests: mark a handful of tests as leak-free
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Aug 25, 2023, 20:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20230825203819.GC2382334@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <ZOj7XqRSmIFxaI3P@nand.local>
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 03:05:02PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> > The one in t5571, I mentioned earlier that I bisected to 861c56f6f9 > > (branch: fix a leak in setup_tracking, 2023-06-11). > > > > The one in t7516 seems to have been fixed by 866b43e644 > > (do_read_index(): always mark index as initialized unless erroring out, > > 2023-06-29). > > > > I found both by bisecting between v2.39.0 (which shows the leak) and > > v2.42.0 (which doesn't). > > Much appreciated. I'm happy to fold those details into a new round if > you think they are useful enough to live in the commit history. I could > grab your patch as a preparatory step, too. But if you are happy with > this as-is, I am too.
I would definitely mention them if writing the commit message from scratch. I'm not sure if it is worth a re-roll or not.
I do think we should apply the racy-thread log fix, though. I thought we had discussed it at the time, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the archive. And I was willing to let it go as a weird one-off at the time, but now that it wasted another 30 minutes of my life discovering the problem again, I'm in favor of applying it.
Whether it happens as part of your re-rolled series, or is applied separately, I am OK either way. :)
-Peff