On 11 November 2017 at 00:13, Joel Teichroeb <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If the merge does not have anything to do, it does not unlock the index,
> causing any further index operations to fail. Thus, always unlock the index
> regardless of outcome.
> if (clean < 0)
> return clean;
Do we need to roll back the lock also if `clean` is negative? The
current callers are built-ins which will error out, but future callers
might be caught off guard by this.
> - if (active_cache_changed &&
> - write_locked_index(&the_index, &lock, COMMIT_LOCK))
> - return err(o, _("Unable to write index."));
> + if (active_cache_changed) {
> + if (write_locked_index(&the_index, &lock, COMMIT_LOCK))
> + return err(o, _("Unable to write index."));
> + } else {
> + rollback_lock_file(&lock);
> + }
>
> return clean ? 0 : 1;
> }
Looks correct. A simpler change which would still match the commit
message would be to unconditionally call `rollback_lock_file()` just
before returning. That would perhaps be slightly more future-proof,
since it will always leave the lock unlocked, even if the if-else grows
more complicated.
Well, "always" modulo returning early and forgetting to roll back the
lock. ;-) Looking at existing code, it's not obvious which way we should
prefer. Just a thought.
Thanks for spotting this. I was poking around here recently, but failed
to notice this lax lock-handling.
Martin
