Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 05/01, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> While fixing the leak of `cp`, reuse it instead of having to declare
>> another struct child_process.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This shouldn't be needed as 'finish_command' does the cleanup for you by
> calling 'child_prcoess_clear()'.
Yes, indeed.
It might not hurt to update the code so that the cp is reused in the
second run instead of using a separate instance cp1, but that is a
topic separate from fixing a non-existing leak.
>> ---
>> submodule.c | 15 +++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
>> index d3299e29c0..cd098cf12b 100644
>> --- a/submodule.c
>> +++ b/submodule.c
>> @@ -1466,17 +1466,19 @@ int submodule_move_head(const char *path,
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + child_process_clear(&cp);
>> +
>> if (!(flags & SUBMODULE_MOVE_HEAD_DRY_RUN)) {
>> if (new) {
>> - struct child_process cp1 = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
>> + child_process_init(&cp);
>> /* also set the HEAD accordingly */
>> - cp1.git_cmd = 1;
>> - cp1.no_stdin = 1;
>> - cp1.dir = path;
>> + cp.git_cmd = 1;
>> + cp.no_stdin = 1;
>> + cp.dir = path;
>>
>> - argv_array_pushl(&cp1.args, "update-ref", "HEAD", new, NULL);
>> + argv_array_pushl(&cp.args, "update-ref", "HEAD", new, NULL);
>>
>> - if (run_command(&cp1)) {
>> + if (run_command(&cp)) {
>> ret = -1;
>> goto out;
>> }
>> @@ -1492,6 +1494,7 @@ int submodule_move_head(const char *path,
>> }
>> }
>> out:
>> + child_process_clear(&cp);
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.13.0.rc1.1.gbc33f0f778
>>