Kevin Willford <kcwillf...@gmail.com> writes:
> From: Kevin Willford <kewi...@microsoft.com>
>
> This change will use the hashmap from the hashmap.h to keep track of the
> patch_ids that have been encountered instead of using an internal
> implementation. This simplifies the implementation of the patch ids.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Willford <kcwillf...@gmail.com>
> ---
> patch-ids.c | 86
> +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------------
> patch-ids.h | 7 +++--
> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
The patch text itself is almost unreadble because of a lot of
verbose code it had to carry before this change, and the removal of
that unreadable code of course is the point of this very welcome
clean-up ;-). The resulting code is very readable.
> struct patch_id *has_commit_patch_id(struct commit *commit,
> struct patch_ids *ids)
> {
> - return add_commit(commit, ids, 1);
> + struct patch_id patch;
> +
> + memset(&patch, 0, sizeof(patch));
> + if (init_patch_id_entry(&patch, commit, ids))
> + return NULL;
> + return hashmap_get(&ids->patches, &patch, NULL);
> }
>
> struct patch_id *add_commit_patch_id(struct commit *commit,
> struct patch_ids *ids)
> {
> - return add_commit(commit, ids, 0);
> + struct patch_id *key = xcalloc(1, sizeof(*key));
> +
> + if (init_patch_id_entry(key, commit, ids)) {
> + free(key);
> + return NULL;
> + }
This is a tangent, but this made me wonder if it is safe to simply
free(3) the result of calling hashmap_entry_init() which is called
in init_patch_id_entry(). It would obviously become a resource
leak, if a hashmap_entry (which the api documentation says is "an
opaque structure") holds any allocated resource.
The fact that hashmap_entry_init() is there but there is no
corresponding hashmap_entry_clear() hints that there is nothing to
be worried about and I can see from the implementation of
hashmap_entry_init() that no extra resource is held inside, but an
API user should not have to guess. We may want to do one of the two
things:
* document that an embedded hashmap_entry does not hold any
resource that need to be released and it is safe to free the user
structure that embeds one; or
* implement hashmap_entry_clear() that currently is a no-op.
If we anticipate that the hashmap implementation may gain more
fields in this "opaque" structure, the latter might be a more
future-proof approach, as all the callers of hashmap_entry_init()
would already be calling hashmap_entry_clear() to clean it up when
such a change to the hashmap implementation happens. On the other
hand, a caller that does not call hashmap_entry_clear() would not be
noticed by anybody as leaking resources until such a change happens,
so the future-proofing may not have much practical value (iow, the
existing callers of _init() would need to be audited anyway to make
sure they also call _clear()).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
