From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4CA202DD for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 05:51:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750978AbdJBFvB (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2017 01:51:01 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:57196 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750944AbdJBFvA (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2017 01:51:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 7592 invoked by uid 109); 2 Oct 2017 05:51:00 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 05:51:00 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 25899 invoked by uid 111); 2 Oct 2017 05:51:41 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 01:51:41 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 02 Oct 2017 01:50:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 01:50:58 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Martin =?utf-8?B?w4VncmVu?= Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] apply: remove `newfd` from `struct apply_state` Message-ID: <20171002055058.uue7uajfqtkntxjg@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 04:56:08PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote: > Similar to a previous patch, we do not need to use `newfd` to signal > that we have a lockfile to clean up. We can just unconditionally call > `rollback_lock_file`. If we do not hold the lock, it will be a no-op. > > Where we check `newfd` to decide whether we need to take the lock, we > can instead use `is_lock_file_locked()`. Looks good. I was surprised you didn't have to replace any writing to "newfd". But the writing it all happens via write_locked_index(), which directly accesses the lock's fd member. -Peff