Re: [PATCH 1/2] object.c: free replace map in raw_object_store_clear

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: May 10, 2018, 17:23 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79ka0F9s32vxLE2TRUC4HKY=CdASVdawhSeGZ=BUu-5VWvQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy3grizo7.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

Hi Junio,

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:16 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>> The replace map for objects was missed to free in the object store in
>> the conversion of 174774cd519 (Merge branch 'sb/object-store-replace',
>> 2018-05-08)
>
>
> Or is this just a simple "the topic that ends at 174774cd519^2 had
> this leak that needs to be fixed by this patch; instead of rerolling
> this is an incremental, because the topic has already been merged to
> 'master' and it is too late now"?

This is the case. I wondered if I want to point to the exact commit (which I have trouble pointing to as the whole topic has no memory leak fixes, Closest would be d88f9fdf8b2 (replace-object: move replace_map to object store, 2018-04-11)) or rather just point at the series. I did not think of the confusion that might arise there.

Show 8 quoted lines

> Looking at this patch in the context of the side branch (instead of
> in the merged result) already makes sense to me, so I am guessing it
> is the latter (i.e. not a botched merge that missed semantic
> conflicts), in which case the proposed log message is a bit too
> alarming and points readers in a wrong direction.  Shouldn't it
> point at, say, c1274495 ("replace-object: eliminate replace objects
> prepared flag", 2018-04-11) that turned the oidmap instance into a
> pointer in raw_object_store?

Ah, that is the best place to point at. Makes sense. I'll reroll this,

Thanks, Stefan