Re: [PATCH 1/2] bundle: plug resource leak

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 2, 2016, 09:00 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqoaax45l5.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160302085432.GB30295@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> I do find it hard to believe that the bundle code had to invent its own
> ref storage data structure, and couldn't just use "struct ref" like all
> of the other code. It doesn't look like we ever sort it or do
> non-sequential access. The linked-list "struct ref" probably would have
> been fine.
>
> Not a problem you are introducing, of course, but if you are touching
> this code a lot, it might be worth seeing how painful it is.

The bundle code being fairly old, I actually wouldn't be surprised if it predated the wide use of "struct ref" ;-)

It is not performance critical to add entries to the list of prerequisites or references (i.e. it is OK to have these as linear lists, not linked lists of "struct ref"), and these lists do not have to be ultra-efficient in their storage use (i.e. it is OK to replace these with "struct ref" linked lists), so we could go either way. It's not like we would be using a lot of helper functions we already have for "struct ref" in this code, so I'm inclined to give a very low priority to the task of rethinking this data structure.