Re: [PATCH v3 17/19] refs.c: change update_ref to use a transaction
- From
Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
- Date
- Apr 28, 2014, 18:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAL=YDWkk9aqDmAA4OAYd-eFNkdKoEdp8gS=n4VyMqAFpknU3Bg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <535AEFAF.9000908@alum.mit.edu>
Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> On 04/25/2014 06:14 PM, Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
>> Change the update_ref helper function to use a ref transaction internally.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
>> ---
>> refs.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
>> index 1557c3c..95df4a9 100644
>> --- a/refs.c
>> +++ b/refs.c
>> @@ -3397,11 +3397,26 @@ int update_ref(const char *action, const char *refname,
>> const unsigned char *sha1, const unsigned char *oldval,
>> int flags, enum action_on_err onerr)
>> {
>> - struct ref_lock *lock;
>> - lock = update_ref_lock(refname, oldval, flags, NULL, onerr);
>> - if (!lock)
>> + struct ref_transaction *t;
>> + char *err = NULL;
>> +
>> + t = ref_transaction_begin();
>> + if ((!t ||
>> + ref_transaction_update(t, refname, sha1, oldval, flags,
>> + !!oldval)) ||
>> + (ref_transaction_commit(t, action, &err) && !(t = NULL))) {This is transient code to just show how ugly this pattern becomes when ref_transaction_commit() implicitly also frees the transaction.
Later patches toward the end of the series will replace this with something nicer. Currently in this patch series I pass a pointer to pointer for the transaction to _commit() but that is perhaps not optimal either. I will try and see how it would look if _commit would not free the transaction at all and the caller would always have to call ref_transaction_free() explicitely.
I am thinking of something like this :
t = ref_transaction_begin();
if ((!t ||
ref_transaction_update(t, ...)) ||
ref_transaction_commit(t, ...)) {
...something...
}
ref_transaction_free(t);Show 13 quoted lines
> > You seem to have extra parentheses around the first || subexpression. > > You also don't need the parentheses around the && expression because && > binds more tightly than ||. > > But using "!(t = NULL)" in the middle of a conditional expression is > pretty obscure. I think you will change this in a later patch, so I > will defer my comments. > >> + const char *str = "update_ref failed for ref '%s': %s"; > > Indentation error.
Fixed.
Show 23 quoted lines
>
>> +
>> + ref_transaction_rollback(t);
>> + switch (onerr) {
>> + case UPDATE_REFS_MSG_ON_ERR: error(str, refname, err); break;
>> + case UPDATE_REFS_DIE_ON_ERR: die(str, refname, err); break;
>> + case UPDATE_REFS_QUIET_ON_ERR: break;
>> + free(err);
>> + }
>> return 1;
>> - return update_ref_write(action, refname, sha1, lock, NULL, onerr);
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static int ref_update_compare(const void *r1, const void *r2)
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael Haggerty
> mhagger@alum.mit.edu
> http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/