From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] remove hold_lock_file_for_append Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:38:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20150811093809.GA10238@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20150810092731.GA9027@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20150810093514.GE30981@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jim Hill , Michael Haggerty To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 11 11:38:23 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZP60k-00048b-VY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:38:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934006AbbHKJiR (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:38:17 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:43510 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933396AbbHKJiP (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:38:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 24151 invoked by uid 102); 11 Aug 2015 09:38:15 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 04:38:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 14019 invoked by uid 107); 11 Aug 2015 09:38:25 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:38:25 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:38:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 03:36:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > No users of hold_lock_file_for_append remain, so remove it. > > This does not seem to have anything to do with rotating static buffers > used in get_pathname(); the only effect it has is to conflict heavily > with Michael's tempfile topic X-<. Yeah, the first patch (to drop the final caller) is why I stuck it in this series, and I did not want to forget the rest of the topic that Jim worked on. > Perhaps this should be part of Michael's tempfile topic? Yes, I think that is OK. We can keep the first patch (to add_to_alternates_file) here, and do the other one later on top of Michael's topic. -Peff