From: Eric Sunshine Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:49:14 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] bisect: simplify the addition of new bisect terms Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1435064084-5554-4-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c > index 3ff8723..f22923f 100644 > --- a/revision.c > +++ b/revision.c > @@ -2076,14 +2079,32 @@ void parse_revision_opt(struct rev_info *revs, struct parse_opt_ctx_t *ctx, > ctx->argc -= n; > } > > +extern void read_bisect_terms(const char **bad, const char **good); > + > static int for_each_bad_bisect_ref(const char *submodule, each_ref_fn fn, void *cb_data) > { > - return for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, "refs/bisect/bad", fn, cb_data); > + struct strbuf bisect_refs_buf = STRBUF_INIT; > + const char *bisect_refs_str; > + int status; > + strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs_buf, "refs/bisect/"); > + strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs_buf, name_bad); A single strbuf_addf() rather than two strbuf_addstr()s? > + bisect_refs_str = strbuf_detach(&bisect_refs_buf, NULL); > + status = for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, bisect_refs_str, fn, cb_data); > + free((char *)bisect_refs_str); Why the above rather than the simpler? strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs, ...); status = for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, bisect_refs.buf, fn, cb_data); strbuf_release(&bisect_refs); What am I missing? > + return status; > } > > static int for_each_good_bisect_ref(const char *submodule, each_ref_fn fn, void *cb_data) > { > - return for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, "refs/bisect/good", fn, cb_data); > + struct strbuf bisect_refs_buf = STRBUF_INIT; > + const char *bisect_refs_str; > + int status; > + strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs_buf, "refs/bisect/"); > + strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs_buf, name_bad); > + bisect_refs_str = strbuf_detach(&bisect_refs_buf, NULL); > + status = for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, bisect_refs_str, fn, cb_data); > + free((char *)bisect_refs_str); Ditto. > + return status; > }