On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Paul Tan <pyokagan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> All returns before this point leak the memory of `lock_file`.
>
> Yeah, it's intentional. From Documentation/technical/api-lockfile.txt:
>
> * Allocates a `struct lock_file` either as a static variable or on the
> heap, initialized to zeros. Once you use the structure to call the
> `hold_lock_file_*` family of functions, it belongs to the lockfile
> subsystem and its storage must remain valid throughout the life of
> the program (i.e. you cannot use an on-stack variable to hold this
> structure).
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
So what I meant to suggest, was to only allocate the memory if we really need it
by moving the allocation further down.
static int clean_index(const unsigned char *head, const unsigned char *remote)
{
struct lock_file *lock_file;
...
... // includes return -1, which would not leak the memory already allocated
...
lock_file = xalloc (...);
hold_locked_index(lock_file, 1);
--
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