On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 05:14:15AM -0600, karthik nayak wrote:
> 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.
I'll add comments.
> > @@ -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 ';'?
Yup, they should. It's harmless, but certainly confusing.
Patrick
