On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/transport-helper.c b/transport-helper.c
> > > > index f57e84c..479539d 100644
> > > > --- a/transport-helper.c
> > > > +++ b/transport-helper.c
> > > > @@ -67,6 +67,13 @@ static int disconnect_helper(struct transport *transport)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static int close_helper(struct transport *transport)
> > > > +{
> > > > + disconnect_helper(transport);
> > > > + free(transport->data);
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Why did you not leech the transport->data = NULL; part from Peff/Sverre's
> > > patch?
> >
> > Because this code is only called just before transport itself is freed by
> > the caller, and, in general, a transport with these methods is invalid
> > without a valid transport->data. I expect that's also why Peff called it a
> > hack not appropriate for actual application.
>
> So you mean to imply that this method is not about closing, but about
> releasing the structure. Right?
Yes, that's the word I was failing to come up with last night, thanks.
Junio, "s/close/release/g" on that patch should improve comprehensibility
greatly. (And changing the transport method name would probably also
improve matters)
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html