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=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_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 7A5661F404 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751656AbeB0Vod (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:44:33 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:39438 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751568AbeB0Vod (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:44:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 8245 invoked by uid 109); 27 Feb 2018 21:44:33 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:44:33 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 27615 invoked by uid 111); 27 Feb 2018 21:45:21 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:45:21 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:44:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:44:30 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Martin =?utf-8?B?w4VncmVu?= Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sequencer: always roll back lock in `do_recursive_merge()` Message-ID: <20180227214430.GC6899@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <5d657ac87d1e71fd95175faed2b591fa609b8f1c.1519763396.git.martin.agren@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5d657ac87d1e71fd95175faed2b591fa609b8f1c.1519763396.git.martin.agren@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:30:10PM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote: > diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c > index 90807c4559..e6bac4692a 100644 > --- a/sequencer.c > +++ b/sequencer.c > @@ -465,8 +465,10 @@ static int do_recursive_merge(struct commit *base, struct commit *next, > fputs(o.obuf.buf, stdout); > strbuf_release(&o.obuf); > diff_warn_rename_limit("merge.renamelimit", o.needed_rename_limit, 0); > - if (clean < 0) > + if (clean < 0) { > + rollback_lock_file(&index_lock); > return clean; > + } > > if (active_cache_changed && > write_locked_index(&the_index, &index_lock, COMMIT_LOCK)) This addition is obviously correct. I want to note one thing that confused me while reviewing. While looking to see if there were other returns, I noticed that the lines right near the end of your context are funny: if (active_cache_changed && write_locked_index(&the_index, &index_lock, COMMIT_LOCK)) /* * TRANSLATORS: %s will be "revert", "cherry-pick" or * "rebase -i". */ return error(_("%s: Unable to write new index file"), _(action_name(opts))); rollback_lock_file(&index_lock); At first I thought that rollback was a noop, since write_locked_index() would always either commit or rollback. But it's needed for the case when we active_cache_changed isn't true. So I think it's correct as-is, but I wonder if writing it as: if (!active_cache_changed) rollback_lock_file(&index_lock); else if (write_locked_index(&the_index, &index_lock, COMMIT_LOCK)) return error(...); might be easier to follow. I'm OK with leaving it, too, but thought I'd mention it in case it confused other reviewers. -Peff