On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 01:12:16PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote: > prepare_revision_walk() allows callers to take ownership of the array of > pending objects by setting the rev_info flag "leak_pending" and copying > the object_array "pending". They use it to clear commit marks after > setup is done. This interface is brittle enough that it requires > extensive comments. > > Provide an easier way by adding a function that can hand over the array > to a caller-supplied output parameter and converting all users of the > flag "leak_pending" to call prepare_revision_walk_extended() instead. I think this is _better_, but it's still kind of a funny interface. The root of the matter is that the revision-walking code doesn't clean up after itself. In every case, the caller is just saving these to clean up commit marks, isn't it? Could we instead have an interface like: revs.clear_commit_marks = 1; prepare_revision_walk(&revs); ... finish_revision_walk(&revs); where that final function would do any cleanup, including clearing the commit marks. I suspect there are other small bits that get leaked because there's not really any "destructor" for a revision walk. It's not as flexible as this whole "make a copy of the pending tips" thing, but it keeps all of the details abstracted away from the callers. Alternatively: > +`prepare_revision_walk_extended`:: > + > + Like prepare_revision_walk(), but allows callers to take ownership > + of the array of pending objects by passing an object_array pointer > + as the second parameter; passing NULL clears the array. What if we just got rid of this function and had callers do: object_array_copy(&old_pending, &revs); prepare_revision_walk(&revs); ... clear_commit_marks_for_object_array(&old_pending); That sidesteps all of the memory ownership issues by just creating a copy. That's less efficient, but I'd be surprised if it matters in practice (we tend to do one or two revisions per process, there don't tend to be a lot of pending tips, and we're really just talking about copying some pointers here). -Peff
