Re: [PATCH 05/22] sequencer: allow the sequencer to take custody of malloc()ed data

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 31, 2016, 08:20 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1608311019290.129229@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk2ey3yha.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi Junio,

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > In my personal opinion 'set_me_free_after_use' is not the best name,
> > but I unfortunately do not have a better proposal.  Maybe 'entrust_ptr',
> > or 'entrusted_data' / 'entrusted_ptr' / 'entrusted'?
> 
> Is this to accumulate to-be-freed pointers?

Yes.

> I think we often call a local variable that points at a piece of
> memory to be freed "to_free", and that is an appropriate name for
> what this function is trying to do.

I changed it to that.

Show 5 quoted lines

> It is a bit surprising that the careless memory management in this
> codepath leaks only the dumb pieces of memory (as opposed to
> pointers to structures like string list that needs _clear()
> functions, in which case we cannot get away with list of
> to-be-freed).  I guess we were somewhat lucky ;-)

Yeah, the carelessness is more like a convenience where the config machinery is reused to parse the values.

Ciao, Dscho