Re: [PATCH 1/2] bundle: plug resource leak

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:00:38AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > I do find it hard to believe that the bundle code had to invent its own
> > ref storage data structure, and couldn't just use "struct ref" like all
> > of the other code. It doesn't look like we ever sort it or do
> > non-sequential access. The linked-list "struct ref" probably would have
> > been fine.
> >
> > Not a problem you are introducing, of course, but if you are touching
> > this code a lot, it might be worth seeing how painful it is.
> 
> The bundle code being fairly old, I actually wouldn't be surprised
> if it predated the wide use of "struct ref" ;-)
> 
> It is not performance critical to add entries to the list of
> prerequisites or references (i.e. it is OK to have these as linear
> lists, not linked lists of "struct ref"), and these lists do not
> have to be ultra-efficient in their storage use (i.e. it is OK to
> replace these with "struct ref" linked lists), so we could go either
> way.  It's not like we would be using a lot of helper functions we
> already have for "struct ref" in this code, so I'm inclined to give
> a very low priority to the task of rethinking this data structure.

Sure, I agree it's low priority by itself. It was more something to
consider if you find that you are touching the bundle code a lot.

-Peff