Re: [PATCH 2/2] read-cache: free hash context in do_write_index()

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Oct 1, 2024, 10:16 UTC
Message-ID: <ZvvL6bdcV-05tFYY@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <0f257003-5a8d-4eca-987d-517d9754f1fd@gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 06:01:06AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> On 9/30/24 8:32 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:40:24AM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
> 
> > > diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
> > > index 3c078afadbc..51845c2e611 100644
> > > --- a/read-cache.c
> > > +++ b/read-cache.c
> > > @@ -3126,6 +3126,7 @@ out:
> > >   		free_hashfile(f);
> > >   	strbuf_release(&sb);
> > >   	free(ieot);
> > > +	free(eoie_c);
> > >   	return ret;
> > >   }
> > 
> > Yup, this one looks correct. I've sent out an equivalent patch via [1] a
> > couple hours ago.
> > 
> > Patrick
> > 
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/c51f40c5bd0c56967e348363e784222de7884b79.1727687410.git.ps@pks.im/
> 
> Sorry for the collision. I had checked when prepping the GGG PR on
> Friday but forgot to check again before submitting. Your patch is
> better in substance and context.

Nothing to be sorry about, both series were sent out quite close to one another. Quite on the contrary, thanks for fixing this leak :)

I don't mind much which of these versions lands in the tree, and the resulting conflict is trivial to solve anyway.

Patrick