Re: [PATCH 7/7] unpack-trees: free cache_entry array members for merges

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 30, 2013, 15:20 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s10a9fj4No6o3GZQrwkREQP2WXbXr+1F83Q11EJ1AxrcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51A764CE.4000708@lsrfire.ath.cx>

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:40 AM, René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:

Show 38 quoted lines

> Am 30.05.2013 14:04, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>
>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:34 AM, René Scharfe
>> <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>> The merge functions duplicate entries as needed and they don't free
>>> them.  Release them in unpack_nondirectories, the same function
>>> where they were allocated, after we're done.
>>
>>
>> Ah, you beat me to this change, but..
>>
>>> @@ -600,9 +600,14 @@ static int unpack_nondirectories(int n, unsigned
>>> long mask,
>>>                  src[i + o->merge] = create_ce_entry(info, names + i,
>>> stage);
>>>          }
>>>
>>> -       if (o->merge)
>>> -               return call_unpack_fn((const struct cache_entry * const
>>> *)src,
>>> -                                     o);
>>> +       if (o->merge) {
>>> +               int rc = call_unpack_fn((const struct cache_entry * const
>>> *)src,
>>> +                                       o);
>>> +               for (i = 1; i <= n; i++)
>>> +                       if (src[i] && src[i] != o->df_conflict_entry)
>>> +                               free(src[i]);
>>
>>
>> Doesn't it make more sense to follow the code above and do src[i +
>> o->merge]?
>
>
> Not sure I understand.  Is the goal to avoid confusion for code readers by
> using the same indexing method for allocation and release?  Or are you
> worried about o->merge having a different value than 1 in that loop?

Both. In particular I'm eyeballing the code you can even see in this patch:

 src[i + o->merge] = create_ce_entry(info, names + i, stage);

If you think it's better to use src[i], then I think the code above should do the same.

-- 
Felipe Contreras