On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:15:09PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > Hmm. I think this is losing the distinction of "flags the caller has > > passed in to us" versus "flags we are using locally only during the > > transaction_commit routine". If callers look at the flags in the > > REF_TRANSACTION_CLOSED state, do they care about seeing these new flags? > > > > My guess is probably not in practice, and "leaking" these flags is an > > acceptable tradeoff for keeping the transaction_commit function simpler. > > But I haven't looked that closely. > > "struct ref_update" is opaque to callers outside of the refs module, and > ref_update::flags is not read anywhere outside of > ref_transaction_commit() (and its value is passed to > lock_ref_sha1_basic()). So I don't think we have to be shy about storing > our own internal information there. > > In fact, REF_DELETING, REF_ISPRUNING, REF_HAVE_NEW, and REF_HAVE_OLD are > also private to the refs module.
Thanks for checking. If nobody is affected (and is not likely to be), I agree it's not worth worrying about. > I suppose we could mask out all the "private" bits in the flags > parameter passed by the caller, to make sure that the caller hasn't > accidentally set other bits. I think that would be more defensive than > our usual practice, but I don't mind doing it if people think it would > be prudent. I don't think it's necessary. -Peff -- 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
