Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Before overwriting the destination index, first let's discard it's
>>> contents.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> unpack-trees.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
>>> index ede4299..eff2944 100644
>>> --- a/unpack-trees.c
>>> +++ b/unpack-trees.c
>>> @@ -1146,8 +1146,10 @@ int unpack_trees(unsigned len, struct tree_desc *t, struct unpack_trees_options
>>>
>>> o->src_index = NULL;
>>> ret = check_updates(o) ? (-2) : 0;
>>> - if (o->dst_index)
>>> + if (o->dst_index) {
>>> + discard_index(o->dst_index);
>>> *o->dst_index = o->result;
>>> + }
>>
>> I seem to recall that many callers set src_index and dst_index to
>> the same istate, and expect that the original istate pointed by the
>> src_index to remain usable. Is it safe to discard it like this at
>> this point?
>
> Who expects that?
The patch you posted expects that no such caller depends on
src_index being left alone by the call, and I was asking if that
expectantion holds, i.e. if it is safe to discard.
I think your answer can be one of "Yes, it is safe, as no current
caller does so", "I dunno, I did not check", or "No, this and that
caller need to be adjusted".
--
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