From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 23:56:44 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] builtin/remote.c: add and use a REF_STATES_INIT Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87v92lzihd.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > The ownership of the "states" struct or its lifetime isn't different > after this change. It's only that we're doing: > > struct foo = FOO_INIT; > /* use &foo */ > > Instead of: > > struct foo; > memset(&foo, 0, sizeof(foo)); > foo->some_list.strdup_strings = 1; No, I am not talking about ownership of "foo" itself. What changes is ownership of some of the string_list embedded in "foo" that used NOT to have strdup_strings member set now have the bit set, so the string list owns the string. >>> + struct ref_states states = REF_STATES_INIT; >>> struct string_list refs_to_prune = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP; >>> struct string_list_item *item; >>> const char *dangling_msg = dry_run >>> ? _(" %s will become dangling!") >>> : _(" %s has become dangling!"); >>> >>> - memset(&states, 0, sizeof(states)); >>> get_remote_ref_states(remote, &states, GET_REF_STATES); >> >> Like this one, get_remote_ref_states() used to receive states that >> are set to borrow strings, but now we get duplicated strings, right? >> Are we leaking whatever strings we push to these string lists now? > > Ah, yes it *could* happen as a side-effect of this sotr of change that > that memset() was implicitly flipping some string_list structs to the > equivalent of strdup_strings=0. > > But that's not the case here, it was just memset() boilerplate, then in > get_remote_ref_states() we'd set all the string lists we'd use to "dup". OK, get_remotes_ref_states() marked all string list to the dup variant, then we won't have a problem. I was trying to make sure that was something you looked at when preparing these patches. Thanks.