Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> yeah that's the goal. Though as we're in one transaction, as soon
> as we have an early exit, the transaction will abort.
An early exit I am talking about is this:
static int write_ref_sha1(struct ref_lock *lock,
const unsigned char *sha1, const char *logmsg)
{
static char term = '\n';
struct object *o;
if (!lock) {
errno = EINVAL;
return -1;
}
if (!lock->force_write && !hashcmp(lock->old_sha1, sha1))
return 0;
It returns 0 and then the transaction side has this call in a loop:
if (!is_null_sha1(update->new_sha1)) {
if (write_ref_sha1(update->lock, update->new_sha1,
update->msg)) {
strbuf_addf(err, "Cannot write to the ref lock
'%s'.",
update->refname);
ret = TRANSACTION_GENERIC_ERROR;
goto cleanup;
}
}
>> If so, shouldn't the write function at least close the file
>> descriptor even when it knows that the $ref.lock already has the
>> correct object name? The call to close_ref() is never made when the
>> early-return codepath is taken as far as I can see.
>
> The goto cleanup; will take care of unlocking (and closing fds of) all refs
Yes, if write_ref_sha1() returns with non-zero signaling an error,
then the goto will trigger.
But if it short-cuts and returns zero, that goto will not be
reached.
--
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
