Re: [PATCH 3/3] refs.c: remove lock_fd from struct ref_lock

2015-04-15 Thread Junio C Hamano
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes: This whole series LGTM; however, I suggest that this patch be split up. See below. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller sbel...@google.com Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com --- refs.c | 16 ++-- 1 file changed, 6

Re: [PATCH 3/3] refs.c: remove lock_fd from struct ref_lock

2015-04-15 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 04/15/2015 12:25 AM, Stefan Beller wrote: The 'lock_fd' is the same as 'lk-fd'. No need to store it twice so remove it. You may argue this introduces more coupling as we need to know more about the internals of the lock file mechanism, but this will be solved in a later patch. No

[PATCH 3/3] refs.c: remove lock_fd from struct ref_lock

2015-04-14 Thread Stefan Beller
The 'lock_fd' is the same as 'lk-fd'. No need to store it twice so remove it. You may argue this introduces more coupling as we need to know more about the internals of the lock file mechanism, but this will be solved in a later patch. No functional changes intended. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller

Re: [PATCH 3/3] refs.c: remove lock_fd from struct ref_lock

2015-04-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Stefan Beller sbel...@google.com writes: The 'lock_fd' is the same as 'lk-fd'. No need to store it twice so remove it. You may argue this introduces more coupling as we need to know more about the internals of the lock file mechanism, but this will be solved in a later patch. No functional