On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 01:26:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 01:51:21PM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote: > >> On 24/09/16 01:45PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> > When `update_submodule()` fails we return with `die_message()`. > >> > Curiously enough, this causes a memory leak because we use the > >> > `run_process_parallel()` interfaces here, which swap out the die > >> > routine. > >> > >> Naive question, is `update_submodule()` itself being run in parallel > >> here? Is that why the die routine gets swapped out so a child process > >> dying is handled differently? Also is it correct to say leaks are not > >> considered when we "die" normally? > > > > Hm. Revisiting this patch: my analysis was wrong. It's not the parallel > > subsystem that swaps out `die()`, but it's the fact that we call > > `die_message()`, which actually doesn't die. It really only prints the > > message you would see when we call `die()`, nothing more. > > > > I'll amend the commit message and send out the amended version once > > there is more feedback to address. > > So it has been a week and half since the series was posted and it > seems that this is the only thing you might want to touch up. > > What's next? Just have an updated patch [08/23] and nothing else > and be done with it? A v2 round of 23-patch series hopefully will > see somebody other than Justin and I lend an extra set of eyes to > double check before we merge it to 'next'? Makes sense, let's do it this way! I've sent a v2 a couple minutes ago. Patrick
