Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
[snip]
> @@ -898,27 +915,31 @@ static int prepare_transaction_update(struct write_transaction_table_arg **out,
> struct ref_update *update,
> struct strbuf *err)
> {
> - struct reftable_stack *stack = backend_for(refs, update->refname, NULL)->stack;
> struct write_transaction_table_arg *arg = NULL;
> + struct reftable_backend *be;
> size_t i;
> int ret;
>
> + ret = backend_for(&be, refs, update->refname, NULL, 0);
So here, we don't reload the stack, it would be nice to add a comment
why, in the places we don't. Here, it seems to be because we possibly
already have an update which would have pushed us to reload the stack.
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
[snip]
> @@ -1995,15 +2022,19 @@ static int reftable_be_for_each_reflog_ent_reverse(struct ref_store *ref_store,
> {
> struct reftable_ref_store *refs =
> reftable_be_downcast(ref_store, REF_STORE_READ, "for_each_reflog_ent_reverse");
> - struct reftable_stack *stack = backend_for(refs, refname, &refname)->stack;
> struct reftable_log_record log = {0};
> struct reftable_iterator it = {0};
> + struct reftable_backend *be;
> int ret;
>
> if (refs->err < 0)
> return refs->err;
>
> - ret = reftable_stack_init_log_iterator(stack, &it);
> + ret = backend_for(&be, refs, refname, &refname, 0);
Like here, I'm not entirely sure why we don't reload the stack.
> + if (ret)
> + goto done;
> +
> + ret = reftable_stack_init_log_iterator(be->stack, &it);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto done;
>
[snip]
> @@ -2462,7 +2498,7 @@ static int reftable_be_reflog_expire(struct ref_store *ref_store,
> arg.refs = refs;
> arg.records = rewritten;
> arg.len = logs_nr;
> - arg.stack = stack,
> + arg.stack = be->stack,
> arg.refname = refname,
>
Shouldn't these lines end with ';'?
> ret = reftable_addition_add(add, &write_reflog_expiry_table, &arg);
> --
> 2.47.0.229.g8f8d6eee53.dirty
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
