From: Phillip Wood Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 09:27:02 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/27] revisions API users: use release_revisions() in builtin/log.c Message-ID: <9b577148-dc7d-cfdd-56ae-edd933cfd1fa@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <220403.865ynqmeun.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Hi Ævar On 03/04/2022 15:07, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 02 2022, Phillip Wood wrote: > > [A comment on v4, but also applies to v5 I think] > >> On 31/03/2022 02:11, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> In preparation for having the "log" family of functions make wider use >>> of release_revisions() let's have them call it just before >>> exiting. This changes the "log", "whatchanged", "show", >>> "format-patch", etc. commands, all of which live in this file. >>> The release_revisions() API still only frees the "pending" member, >>> but >>> will learn to release more members of "struct rev_info" in subsequent >>> commits. >>> In the case of "format-patch" revert the addition of UNLEAK() in >>> dee839a2633 (format-patch: mark rev_info with UNLEAK, 2021-12-16), >>> which will cause several tests that previously passed under >>> "TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true" to start failing. >>> In subsequent commits we'll now be able to use those tests to check >>> whether that part of the API is really leaking memory, and will fix >>> all of those memory leaks. Removing the UNLEAK() allows us to make >>> incremental progress in that direction. See [1] for further details >>> about this approach. >> >> This breaks "git bisect" but only when running the test suite to >> detect leaks so I guess that's not too bad. An alternative would be to >> manually remove the UNLEAK() when you're testing rather than >> committing the change. > > It doesn't, for this series each individual commit passes with Oh I'd missed that, thanks for explaining > make test > GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true make test SANITIZE=leak > > And also in a stricter mode that I have locally (not in git yet): > > make test > GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check make test SANITIZE=leak > > Which ensures not only that the tests we marked as leak free pass, but > that no other tests we *haven't* marked pass unexpectedly (requires prep > changes before this series to mark the still-not-marked-but-should-be > tests). > > I think that should address/help explain things re your questions about > some of the UNLEAK() back-and-forth. Yes it does, the next patch makes sense to me now as well thanks > [...] >>> @@ -558,7 +564,7 @@ int cmd_whatchanged(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) >>> cmd_log_init(argc, argv, prefix, &rev, &opt); >>> if (!rev.diffopt.output_format) >>> rev.diffopt.output_format = DIFF_FORMAT_RAW; >>> - return cmd_log_walk(&rev); >>> + return cmd_log_deinit(cmd_log_walk(&rev), &rev); >> >> This is a rather unusual pattern, at first I wondered if there were >> going to be more added to the body of cmd_log_deinit() in later >> commits but there isn't so why not just call release_revisions() here >> to be consistent with the other release_revisions() call that are >> added in other patches? > > It's just a way to save every single call to this callsite a change on > top like this: > > diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c > index 5dad70aa47e..ece03536bed 100644 > --- a/builtin/log.c > +++ b/builtin/log.c > @@ -684,8 +684,11 @@ int cmd_show(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > opt.tweak = show_setup_revisions_tweak; > cmd_log_init(argc, argv, prefix, &rev, &opt); > > - if (!rev.no_walk) > - return cmd_log_deinit(cmd_log_walk(&rev), &rev); > + if (!rev.no_walk) { > + ret = cmd_log_walk(&rev); > + release_revisions(&rev); > + return ret; > + } > > count = rev.pending.nr; > objects = rev.pending.objects; > > Which, given that there's 6 of them nicely cuts down on the resulting > verbosity. If you want to adopt this pattern more widely then if there was a helper function in revisions.c it could be used in patches 11 and 14 as well as this one I think. Best Wishes Phillip