On 04/20/2018 01:49 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
base-commit: cafaccae98f749ebf33495aec42ea25060de8682
I couldn't quite figure out what these five patches were based on,
even with this line. Basing on and referring to a commit that is
not part of our published history with "base-commit" is not all that
useful to others.
I'd like to second this. In the object store refactoring, I am at a point where
I'd want to migrate the memory management of {object, tree, commit, tag}.c
which currently is done in alloc.c to a memory pool, that has a dedicated
pointer to it.
So I'd either have to refactor alloc.c to take the_repository[1] or
I'd play around with the mem_pool to manage memory in the
object layer. I guess this playing around can happen with
what is at origin/jm/mem-pool, however the life cycle management
part of the third patch[2] would allow for stopping memleaks there.
So I am interested in this series as well.
Sorry about the confusion here. This patch series can be applied to the
next branch. They apply cleanly on [3]. The lifecycle functions are
re-introduced in [4], which we could incorporate sooner if useful. I
didn't have a consumer for the calls in the original patch series, and
so deferred them until there was a caller. I would be interested to
understand how the mem_pool would fit your needs, and if it is
sufficient or needs modification for your use cases.
[1] proof of concept in patches nearby
https://public-inbox.org/git/20180206001749.218943-31-sbel...@google.com/
[2] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180417163400.3875-5-jam...@microsoft.com/
Thanks,
Stefan
[3] b46fe60e1d ("merge-fix/ps/test-chmtime-get", 2018-04-20)
[4]
https://public-inbox.org/git/20180417163400.3875-5-jam...@microsoft.com/
