On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:24 AM brian m. carlson
<sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> diff --git a/builtin/am.c b/builtin/am.c
> index 912d9821b1..340eacbd44 100644
> --- a/builtin/am.c
> +++ b/builtin/am.c
> @@ -441,24 +441,8 @@ static int run_applypatch_msg_hook(struct am_state *state)
> */
> static int run_post_rewrite_hook(const struct am_state *state)
> {
> - struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> - const char *hook = find_hook("post-rewrite");
> - int ret;
> -
> - if (!hook)
> - return 0;
> -
> - argv_array_push(&cp.args, hook);
> - argv_array_push(&cp.args, "rebase");
> -
> - cp.in = xopen(am_path(state, "rewritten"), O_RDONLY);
> - cp.stdout_to_stderr = 1;
> - cp.trace2_hook_name = "post-rewrite";
> -
> - ret = run_command(&cp);
> -
> - close(cp.in);
In the old code, we close cp.in...
> +int post_rewrite_rebase_hook(const char *name, const char *path, void *input)
> +{
> + struct child_process child = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> +
> + child.in = open(input, O_RDONLY);
> + child.stdout_to_stderr = 1;
> + child.trace2_hook_name = "post-rewrite";
maybe use "name" and avoid hard coding "post-rewrite".
> + argv_array_push(&child.args, path);
> + argv_array_push(&child.args, "rebase");
> + return run_command(&child);
... but in the new one we don't. Smells fd leaking to me.
--
Duy
