From: Felipe Contreras Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 17:25:08 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] unpack-trees: free cache_entry array members for merges Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1370188017-24672-8-git-send-email-rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM, René Scharfe 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. > > As suggested by Felipe, use the same loop style (zero-based for loop) > for freeing as for allocating. > > Improved-by: Felipe Contreras > Signed-off-by: René Scharfe > --- > unpack-trees.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c > index 2dbc05d..57b4074 100644 > --- a/unpack-trees.c > +++ b/unpack-trees.c > @@ -600,9 +600,16 @@ 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 = 0; i < n; i++) { > + struct cache_entry *ce = src[i + o->merge]; > + if (ce != o->df_conflict_entry) It's possible that ce is NULL, but you didn't add that check because free(NULL) still works? Or because ce cannot be NULL? If it's the former, I think it's clearer if we check that ce is not NULL either way. Otherwise it's OK by me. > + free(ce); > + } > + return rc; > + } -- Felipe Contreras