On Wed, Mar 09 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 3/9/2022 9:34 AM, Derrick Stolee wrote: >> On 3/9/2022 8:16 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> == For Junio == >>> >>> This has a trivially resolved conflict with Derrick Stolee's >>> aaf251cdc5c (revision: put object filter into struct rev_info, >>> 2022-03-08) currently in "seen" in builtin/rev-list.c. >>> >>> The resolution is to just keep the "goto cleanup" in place of "return >>> 0" in the conflicting lines, but to otherwise keep Derrick's version. >>> >>> It will pass with/without SANITIZE=leak when applied to both "master" >>> and "seen". I omitted one test change (described in a relevant commit >>> message) due to the latter not being true (no fault of "seen", just a >>> new leaking command being added to a test). >> >> Since ds/partial-bundles will soon be updated in v4 to change the >> pointer added to struct rev_info, it is even more likely that there >> will be more important things to do with regards to clearing the >> memory of rev_infos based on that change. It might be better to wait >> for that update (coming soon) and then rebase directly on top. > > I took a look at the series as it stands now and have a few nits > here and there. Generally, things are pretty standard in this kind > of series you've been working diligently on for a while. Thanks for the review. From a quick skim I didn't see anything I needed to address other than with an eventual re-roll, so I'll incorporate it into a v2, pending some further feedback. > The only thing I can recommend is to check that your leak-check > statements are still true when reaching the end of the series, now > that the filter member exists. Likely the tests that you are marking > as leak-free do nothing with object filters, so they will still be > true. Just something to keep in mind and maybe add a patch that > recursively frees the contents of 'revs->filter' at the end. *nod*. For what it's worth I tested this with 'git rebase -x' and a local patch I have that allows you to run the tests in a mode where it asserts that there's a 1=1 mapping between tests marked for the linux-leaks job, and those that currently pass. I.e. a passing test that isn't opted-in via TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true will fail if it passes with SANITIZE=leak. I'll run the v2 with that again, and will lean on the side of just ejecting any changes that step on the toes of other in-flight topics. I.e. as noted in the cover letter this isn't all of the revisions.[ch] leaks, just most of them, so I can always eject a few and leave those for a follow-up series (which I already have patches for, but those are all a bit more complex, so I left them out for now).
