On 05/17, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:05:33PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > > Instead of using a global `lock_file` instance for the main > > "packed-refs" file and using a pointer in `files_ref_store` to keep > > track of whether it is locked, embed the `lock_file` instance directly > > in the `files_ref_store` struct and use the new > > `is_lock_file_locked()` function to keep track of whether it is > > locked. This keeps related data together and makes the main reference > > store less of a special case. > > This made me wonder how we handle the locking for ref_stores besides the > main one (e.g., for submodules). The lockfile structs have to remain > valid for the length of the program. Previously those stores could have > xcalloc()'d a lockfile and just leaked it. Now they'll need to xcalloc() > and leak their whole structs.
Wait, why would this be the case? I would assume that you would allocate a ref_store (including a lockfile for it) and then once you are done with the ref_store, you free it (and unlock and free the lockfile). I'm definitely not versed in ref handling code though so I may be missing something. > > I suspect the answer is "we don't ever lock anything except the main ref > store because that is the only one we write to", so it doesn't matter > anyway. Really? I can envision a case in the future where we'd want to update a ref, or create a ref inside a submodule. -- Brandon Williams
