Re: [PATCH v1 03/19] split-index: add {add,remove}_split_index() functions

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2016, 09:58 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8DPt3EJoSTVEZFbH6xXbh78MbLZ4h+50K4eoFxPYSaN=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161023092648.12086-4-chriscool@tuxfamily.org>

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> +void remove_split_index(struct index_state *istate)
> +{
> +       if (istate->split_index) {
> +               /*
> +                * can't discard_split_index(&the_index); because that
> +                * will destroy split_index->base->cache[], which may
> +                * be shared with the_index.cache[]. So yeah we're
> +                * leaking a bit here.

In the context of update-index, this is a one-time thing and leaking is tolerable. But because it becomes a library function now, this leak can become more serious, I think.

The only other (indirect) caller is read_index_from() so probably not bad most of the time (we read at the beginning of a command only). sequencer.c may discard and re-read the index many times though, leaking could be visible there.

Show 5 quoted lines

> +                */
> +               istate->split_index = NULL;
> +               istate->cache_changed |= SOMETHING_CHANGED;
> +       }
> +}

-- 
Duy