Re: [PATCH 10/11] ref_transaction_verify(): new function to check a reference's value

> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>  /*
>> - * Add a reference update to transaction.  new_sha1 is the value that
>> - * the reference should have after the update, or null_sha1 if it should
>> - * be deleted.  If old_sha1 is non-NULL, then it the value
>> - * that the reference should have had before the update, or null_sha1 if
>> - * it must not have existed beforehand.
>> - * Function returns 0 on success and non-zero on failure. A failure to update
>> - * means that the transaction as a whole has failed and will need to be
>> - * rolled back.
>> + * Add a reference update to transaction. new_sha1 is the value that
>> + * the reference should have after the update, or null_sha1 if it
>> + * should be deleted. If new_sha1 is NULL, then the reference is not
>> + * changed at all. old_sha1 is the value that the reference must have
>> + * before the update, or null_sha1 if it must not have existed
>> + * beforehand. The old value is checked after the lock is taken to
>> + * prevent races. If the old value doesn't agree with old_sha1, the
>> + * whole transaction fails. If old_sha1 is NULL, then the previous
>> + * value is not checked.
>> + *
>> + * Return 0 on success and non-zero on failure. Any failure in the
>> + * transaction means that the transaction as a whole has failed and
>> + * will need to be rolled back.
> 
> Do we need to be explicit about having to rollback everything in each
> ref_transaction_* function documentation?