Re: [PATCH] exec_cmd: system_path memory leak fix

> [jc: added those who were mentioned but were missing back to Cc]
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Alex Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Junio C Hamano:
>>
>>>Fixing these callers are done as separate patches, that can be
>>>applied either before or after this patch.
>>
>> How to do it better? Update this patch, fix all callers which broken and
>> concat this patches to one or make separate patches?
>
> As I said, I do not think the approach your v2 takes is better than the original
> approach to pass the ownership of the returned value to the caller. I'd say that
> a cleaned up v1 that makes sure it adds a necessary strdup() in the codepath
> where it returns an absolute pathname given as-is, with necessary changes to
> callers that do not currently free the received result to free it when they are
> done, and to callers that currently do strdup() of the received result not to do
> strdup(), in a single patch, would be the right thing to do.
>
> I think I already wrote the bulk of proposed commit message for you for such
> a change earlier ;-) The one that talks about changing the contract between the
> system_path() and its callers.
>
> Thanks.