On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:13:44PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 25 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > * tb/plug-pack-bitmap-leaks (2021-10-21) 9 commits > > - pack-bitmap.c: more aggressively free in free_bitmap_index() > > - pack-bitmap.c: don't leak type-level bitmaps > > - pack-bitmap.c: avoid leaking via midx_bitmap_filename() > > - builtin/multi-pack-index.c: don't leak concatenated options > > - builtin/repack.c: avoid leaking child arguments > > - builtin/pack-objects.c: don't leak memory via arguments > > - t/helper/test-read-midx.c: free MIDX within read_midx_file() > > - midx.c: don't leak MIDX from verify_midx_file > > - midx.c: clean up chunkfile after reading the MIDX > > > > Leakfix. > > > > Will merge to 'next'? > > These patches all look good to me. > > I see you peeled off 10/11 and 11/11 from Taylor's submitted > patches. The 10/11 re-submitted a patch that's in my > ab/only-single-progress-at-once, and I really preferred 11/11 not going > in, and instead suggested [1]. > > But since you've peeled off those two (I wouldn't have 10/11 at all) I > think this is definitely ready for 'next'. > > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-1.1-9190f3c128f-20211022T102725Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ I sent a small updated version to fix a couple of things that I noticed during review here: https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1635282024.git.me@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t Using either version is fine, of course, but the one above may be a little nicer. (Apologies for the out-of-thread v2, I only noticed that I hadn't set `--in-reply-to` until after I had sent out the cover letter). Thanks, Taylor
