Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In `split_symref_update()`, there were two checks for duplicate
> refnames:
>
> - At the start, `string_list_has_string()` ensures the refname is not
> already in `affected_refnames`, preventing duplicates from being
> added.
>
> - After adding the refname, another check verifies whether the newly
> inserted item has a `util` value.
>
> The second check is unnecessary because the first one guarantees that
> `string_list_insert()` will never encounter a preexisting entry.
>
> Since `item->util` is only used in this context, remove the assignment and
> simplify the surrounding code.
It was a bit unclear what "this context" refers to. We lost all
assignments to the .util member and that is a safe thing to do
because ...
> @@ -2843,13 +2835,7 @@ static int files_transaction_prepare(struct ref_store *ref_store,
> if (update->flags & REF_LOG_ONLY)
> continue;
>
> - item = string_list_append(&affected_refnames, update->refname);
> - /*
> - * We store a pointer to update in item->util, but at
> - * the moment we never use the value of this field
> - * except to check whether it is non-NULL.
> - */
> - item->util = update;
... of this comment, and the "except to check whether" used to
happen in this code ...
> * be valid as long as affected_refnames is in use, and NOT
> * referent, which might soon be freed by our caller.
> */
> - item = string_list_insert(affected_refnames, new_update->refname);
> - if (item->util)
> - BUG("%s unexpectedly found in affected_refnames",
> - new_update->refname);
> - item->util = new_update;
... which the patch removed.
OK. Makes perfect sense.
Thanks.
