On 04/01/2014 10:21 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:58:20PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
>> It's bad manners. Especially since, if unlink_or_warn() failed, the
>> memory wasn't restored to its original contents.
>>
>> So make our own copy to work with.
>
> Sounds good...
>
>> if (!(flag & REF_ISPACKED) || flag & REF_ISSYMREF) {
>> - /* loose */
>> - int err, i = strlen(lock->lk->filename) - 5; /* .lock */
>> -
>> - lock->lk->filename[i] = 0;
>> - err = unlink_or_warn(lock->lk->filename);
>> - lock->lk->filename[i] = '.';
>> + /*
>> + * loose. The loose file name is the same as the
>> + * lockfile name, minus ".lock":
>> + */
>> + char *loose_filename = xmemdupz(lock->lk->filename,
>> + strlen(lock->lk->filename) - 5);
>> + int err = unlink_or_warn(loose_filename);
>> + free(loose_filename);
>
> Should we be using LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN from the previous commit here?
LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN is not in scope to this file, and I think it should stay
that way. But never fear; this figuring-out-filename-from-lockfile-name
nonsense is gone by the end of the patch series.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhag...@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
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
