On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:23:39AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> 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.
Interesting observation. I think the only thing that could be mutated in
the run_hooks_opt struct today is the caller-provided callback data
(run_hooks_opt.feed_pipe_ctx) - which presumably is being manipulated by the
caller in a callback they wrote. But I don't think it hurts particularly
to clear/init again between the two invocations, to be safe - so I will
change the code here.
- Emily
