On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 6:30 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This EBUSY was set in 835e3c992fd (refs.c: verify_lock should set
> errno to something meaningful, 2014-06-20) to fix a bug in code that
> was later refactored in cd94f765720 (fetch.c: change s_update_ref to
> use a ref transaction, 2014-04-28) to not use errno at all, the two
> were a part of the same series.
>
> So this was only ever needed for an intra-series bugfix, and we kept
> it around for no reason. Removing it makes subsequent commits where we
> refactor code surrounding verify_lock() (which may use errno) easier
> to reason about.
> diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c
> index a4e9344ac8b..abed0572fea 100644
> --- a/refs/files-backend.c
> +++ b/refs/files-backend.c
> @@ -880,9 +880,7 @@ static int verify_lock(struct ref_store *ref_store, struct ref_lock *lock,
> mustexist ? RESOLVE_REF_READING : 0,
> &lock->old_oid, NULL)) {
> if (old_oid) {
> - int save_errno = errno;
> strbuf_addf(err, "can't verify ref '%s'", lock->ref_name);
> - errno = save_errno;
your message talks about EBUSY, and that change looks good, but how
does it relate to this change?
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich
I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays.
--
Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
