Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] unpack-trees: free cache_entry array members for merges

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM, René Scharfe
<rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 02.06.2013 19:25, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM, René Scharfe
>> <rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> +               for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>>> +                       struct cache_entry *ce = src[i + o->merge];
>>> +                       if (ce != o->df_conflict_entry)
>>
>>
>> It's possible that ce is NULL, but you didn't add that check because
>> free(NULL) still works? Or because ce cannot be NULL?
>>
>> If it's the former, I think it's clearer if we check that ce is not
>> NULL either way.
>
>
> It is NULL if one tree misses an entry (e.g. a new or removed file). free
> handles NULL and we generally avoid duplicating its NULL-check.

Yeah, but I can see somebody adding code inside that 'if' clause to
print the cache entry, and see a crash only to wonder what's going on.
And to save what? 5 characters?

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]