Brad King <brad.king@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 08/29/2013 01:39 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Brad King <brad.king@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> + for (i=0; i < n; ++i) {
>>
>> Style:
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Is it asking for AB-BA deadlock? If so, is the caller responsible
>> for avoiding it?
>
> Since we don't actually block waiting for locks we won't really
> deadlock.
Ahh, OK.
> For Git's internal API I think we can document this in a comment so
> that update_refs does not have to sort. Then we can add a new
> ref_update_sort function to sort an array of struct ref_update.
> The user-facing "update-ref --stdin" can then use ref_update_sort.
My immediate reaction was "is there a case where the caller knows
that it already has a sorted collection?". The single caller you
are envisioning could collect the proposed updates to a string list
and dedup, I think, and the resulting list would then be already
sorted.
But it may not be a bad idea to keep the callers dumb and have this
function always sort, dedup, *and* fail inconsistent request. Then
your original caller that just collects --stdin input can pass
possibly unsorted, duplicated and/or inconsistent request to the
function and have it do the sanity check.
--
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