From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/25] Remove assumptions about each_ref_fn arg lifetimes Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:25:03 +0200 Message-ID: <8761y2ura8.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> References: <1369472904-12875-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , "Johan Herland" , To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 29 10:25:14 2013 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 1Uhbh4-0005CN-06 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 10:25:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965100Ab3E2IZH (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2013 04:25:07 -0400 Received: from edge20.ethz.ch ([82.130.99.26]:58984 "EHLO edge20.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965029Ab3E2IZF (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2013 04:25:05 -0400 Received: from CAS10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) by edge20.ethz.ch (82.130.99.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Wed, 29 May 2013 10:24:59 +0200 Received: from linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net.ethz.ch (129.132.153.233) by cas10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Wed, 29 May 2013 10:25:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1369472904-12875-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> (Michael Haggerty's message of "Sat, 25 May 2013 11:07:59 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [129.132.153.233] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Michael Haggerty writes: > I read the entire series on Monday, and give it an Ack at maybe 90% confidence level -- sorry, I was short on caffeine and sleep ;-) I meant to verify this assertion: > I did a manual audit of the 50 (!) functions that are used as an > each_ref_fn callback to the for_each_ref()-style functions. (I hope I > haven't missed any.) I checked that they do not make the assumption > that the lifetimes of the refname and sha1 arguments extend past the > duration of the callback invocation. There were a number of callers > that got this wrong; I believe I have fixed them all. But time ran out, and I wouldn't want you to hold your breath. The series is a big improvement even if another caller slipped through the cracks. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch