On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Christian Couder
<christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +void remove_split_index(struct index_state *istate)
> +{
> + if (istate->split_index) {
> + /*
> + * can't discard_split_index(&the_index); because that
> + * will destroy split_index->base->cache[], which may
> + * be shared with the_index.cache[]. So yeah we're
> + * leaking a bit here.
In the context of update-index, this is a one-time thing and leaking
is tolerable. But because it becomes a library function now, this leak
can become more serious, I think.
The only other (indirect) caller is read_index_from() so probably not
bad most of the time (we read at the beginning of a command only).
sequencer.c may discard and re-read the index many times though,
leaking could be visible there.
> + */
> + istate->split_index = NULL;
> + istate->cache_changed |= SOMETHING_CHANGED;
> + }
> +}
--
Duy