Re: [PATCH 5/5] ref_transaction_commit(): only keep one lockfile open at a time

2015-04-27 Thread Jeff King
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:21:07PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: I am not too worried about push --atomic, as we can just add a few words to Release Notes and documentation saying this is still an experimental broken code that is unusable; don't

Re: [PATCH 5/5] ref_transaction_commit(): only keep one lockfile open at a time

2015-04-25 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: I am not too worried about push --atomic, as we can just add a few words to Release Notes and documentation saying this is still an experimental broken code that is unusable; don't use the feature in production. I however am more worried about the

Re: [PATCH 5/5] ref_transaction_commit(): only keep one lockfile open at a time

2015-04-25 Thread Junio C Hamano
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes: Given that git push --atomic is one of the main new features of 2.4.0, it would be unfortunate for the release to contain this bug, plus the bug that atomic pushes can fail due to file descriptor exhaustion. Is this problem important enough to

Re: [PATCH 5/5] ref_transaction_commit(): only keep one lockfile open at a time

2015-04-25 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 04/24/2015 01:35 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote: The old code locked all of the references in the first loop, leaving all of the lockfiles open until later loops. Since we might be updating a lot of references, this could cause file descriptor exhaustion. But there is no reason to keep the

[PATCH 5/5] ref_transaction_commit(): only keep one lockfile open at a time

2015-04-24 Thread Michael Haggerty
The old code locked all of the references in the first loop, leaving all of the lockfiles open until later loops. Since we might be updating a lot of references, this could cause file descriptor exhaustion. But there is no reason to keep the lockfiles open after the first loop: * For references