On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> From the diff, it is not immediately clear that fsmonitor_dirty is not
> leaked in any code path.
>
> Could you clarify this in the commit message, please?
Will do!
> > @@ -238,6 +225,29 @@ void remove_fsmonitor(struct index_state *istate)
> >
> > void tweak_fsmonitor(struct index_state *istate)
> > {
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + if (istate->fsmonitor_dirty) {
> > + /* Mark all entries valid */
> > + trace_printf_key(&trace_fsmonitor, "fsmonitor is enabled; cache is %d", istate->cache_nr);
>
> Sadly, a call to trace_printf_key() is not really a noop when tracing is
> disabled. [snip]
Apologies -- I'd meant to remove the tracing before committing. I
think we're all on the same page that it would be nice to lower the
impact of tracing to let it be more prevalent, but I'd rather not
block these changes on that.
Thanks for the comments!
- Alex
