Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -1558,8 +1563,10 @@ static void do_commit(const struct am_state *state)
> struct commit_list *parents = NULL;
> const char *reflog_msg, *author, *committer = NULL;
> struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
> + struct run_hooks_opt hook_opt;
> + run_hooks_opt_init_async(&hook_opt);
>
> - if (run_hook_le(NULL, "pre-applypatch", NULL))
> + if (run_hooks("pre-applypatch", &hook_opt))
> exit(1);
>
> if (write_cache_as_tree(&tree, 0, NULL))
> @@ -1611,8 +1618,9 @@ static void do_commit(const struct am_state *state)
> fclose(fp);
> }
>
> - run_hook_le(NULL, "post-applypatch", NULL);
> + run_hooks("post-applypatch", &hook_opt);
>
> + run_hooks_opt_clear(&hook_opt);
> strbuf_release(&sb);
> }
This one does opt_init(), run_hooks(), and another run_hooks() and
then opt_clear(). If run_hooks() is a read-only operation on the
hook_opt, then that would be alright, but it just smells iffy that
it is not done as two separate opt_init(), run_hooks(), opt_clear()
sequences for two separate run_hooks() invocations. The same worry
about future safety I meantioned elsewhere in the series also
applies.
Thanks.
