On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:56 PM Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: Jiang Xin <zhiyou.jx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > After successfully connecting to the smart transport by calling > > process_connect_service() in connect_helper(), run do_take_over() to > > replace the old vtable with a new one which has methods ready for the > > smart transport connection. > > > > > > The connect_helper() function is used as the connect method of the > > vtable in "transport-helper.c", and it is called by transport_connect() > > in "transport.c" to setup a connection. The only place that we call > > transport_connect() so far is in "builtin/archive.c". Without running > > do_take_over(), it may fail to call transport_disconnect() in > > run_remote_archiver() of "builtin/archive.c". This is because for a > > stateless connection or a service like "git-upload-pack-archive", the > > There is "git-upload-pack" and "git-upload-archive". Which one did you > mean here? Or did you mean both? > Should be "git-upload-archive". > > remote helper may receive a SIGPIPE signal and exit early. To have a > > graceful disconnect method by calling do_take_over() will solve this > > issue. > > Are you saying that this patch fixes an existing bug? That is, is this > patch independent of the first patch (transport-helper: no connection > restriction in connect_helper) in this series? > > > The subsequent commit will introduce remote archive over a stateless-rpc > > connection. > > Does the next commit depend on this patch? If not, I think you can drop > this paragraph. One test case in next commit will break without this patch. I will move this patch to the end of this series.
