>"lilinchao@xxxxxxxxxx" <lilinchao@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>>@@ -1999,6 +2000,7 @@ static int update_background_schedule(int enable)
>>> die("unknown background scheduler: %s", scheduler);
>>>
>>> rollback_lock_file(&lk);
>>>+ free(lock_path);
>> Based on your change, I think when "hold_lock_file_for_update()<0", we should also free local_path
>> Thanks
>
>Meaning something like this?
>
>
> builtin/gc.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git c/builtin/gc.c w/builtin/gc.c
>index 98a803196b..50565c37c7 100644
>--- c/builtin/gc.c
>+++ w/builtin/gc.c
>@@ -1971,8 +1971,10 @@ static int update_background_schedule(int enable)
> cmd = sep + 1;
> }
>
>- if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0)
>- return error(_("another process is scheduling background maintenance"));
>+ if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0) {
>+ result = error(_("another process is scheduling background maintenance"));
>+ goto cleanup;
>+ }
>
> if (!strcmp(scheduler, "launchctl"))
> result = launchctl_update_schedule(enable, get_lock_file_fd(&lk), cmd);
>@@ -1984,6 +1986,9 @@ static int update_background_schedule(int enable)
> die("unknown background scheduler: %s", scheduler);
>
> rollback_lock_file(&lk);
>+
>+cleanup:
>+ free(lock_path);
> free(testing);
> return result;
> }
Yes, it's almost like this, and your is better than I thought.
I just referred to this function(L1266-L1321):
static int maintenance_run_tasks(struct maintenance_run_opts *opts)
{
...
if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0) {
...
free(lock_path);
return 0;
}
free(lock_path);
...
...
rollback_lock_file(&lk);
return result;
}
and thought we should also apply it to "update_background_schedule()".
