[0/2] commit-graph: more leak fixes

Message

Martin Ågren Oct. 3, 2018, 3:36 p.m. UTC

Hi Derrick,

These two patches on top of yours make the test suite (i.e., the subset
of it that I run) leak-free with respect to builtin/commit-graph.c and
commit-graph.c.

The first could be squashed into your patch 1/2. It touches the same
function, but it requires a different usage to trigger, so squashing it
in would require broadening the scope. I understand if you don't want to
do that.

If you want to pick these up as part of your re-roll in any way, shape
or form, go ahead. If not, they can go in separately, either in parallel
or after your series lands. Whatever the destiny of this posting, I'll
follow through as appropriate.

Martin

Martin Ågren (2):
  commit-graph: free `struct packed_git` after closing it
  builtin/commit-graph.c: UNLEAK variables

 builtin/commit-graph.c | 11 ++++++-----
 commit-graph.c         |  1 +
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Derrick Stolee Oct. 3, 2018, 4:19 p.m. UTC | #1

On 10/3/2018 11:36 AM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> Hi Derrick,
>
> These two patches on top of yours make the test suite (i.e., the subset
> of it that I run) leak-free with respect to builtin/commit-graph.c and
> commit-graph.c.

Thanks!

> The first could be squashed into your patch 1/2. It touches the same
> function, but it requires a different usage to trigger, so squashing it
> in would require broadening the scope. I understand if you don't want to
> do that.
I'm fine with squashing it in with both our sign-offs. It is the same 
idea, it just requires a different set of arguments to hit it. I'll 
adjust the commit message as necessary.

> If you want to pick these up as part of your re-roll in any way, shape
> or form, go ahead. If not, they can go in separately, either in parallel
> or after your series lands. Whatever the destiny of this posting, I'll
> follow through as appropriate.

I'll add your PATCH 2/2 to my v2. Thanks!

Martin Ågren Oct. 3, 2018, 4:24 p.m. UTC | #2

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 18:19, Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'm fine with squashing it in with both our sign-offs. It is the same
> idea, it just requires a different set of arguments to hit it. I'll
> adjust the commit message as necessary.

> I'll add your PATCH 2/2 to my v2. Thanks!

Cool, thanks a lot.

Martin