Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:58:10PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> By the time the "if" block is entered, the lock_file instance from the >> main function block is no longer in use, so re-use that one instead of >> allocating a second one. >> >> Note that the "lock" variable in the "if" block used to shadow the >> "lock" variable at function scope, so the only change needed is to >> remove the inner definition. > > I wonder if this would also be simpler if "lock" were simply declared as > a static variable, and we drop the allocation entirely. I suppose that > does create more cognitive load, though, in that it is only correct if > the function is not recursive. On the other hand, the current code makes > a reader unfamiliar with "struct lock" wonder if there is a free(lock) > missing.
Another thing that makes a reader wonder if this is a valid rewrite is if it is safe to reuse a lock_file structure, especially because the original gives a piece of memory _cleared_ with xcalloc(). The second invocation of hold_locked_index() is now done on a dirty piece of memory, and the reader needs to drill down the callchain to see if that is safe (and if not, hold_locked_index() and probably the underlying lock_file() needs to memset() it to NULs). -- 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
