From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F00B1F670 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 04:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230428AbhJVEbZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2021 00:31:25 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60746 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230175AbhJVEbY (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2021 00:31:24 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2ACC061764 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id y67so3700971iof.10 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:29:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=MW91CMw5XJ5/fg7fpI3Y0BpYPQ2BPm7MVc6IBpCCeBI=; b=4vOvVp5Bd29tg5HondsNC0nKd3u1H8DYlSO1vkkFL2Ox0I3UIT9AU/pCY3UoLhWN1I pIRelF6WHlXTTD/LQ12oKKF10rAh9btE7vgZ5NLPa6BWY9dEEx0yWmDBcVhX76k0FgPJ tfy/oGB8rV12eJlv7zlMrEScNMxl5fI+p/IPngqxEN29LMmaZKTOhd9b9Mqq6mzWBhOj 4EGWMO5wkJ5IcPat6rXP28j7N5LHSzWd5x45XmzT7fgM15gAvSn7B44/dbtMMn9oLDm4 Ocy62Hmtjnjql22fR1dW1G0eKKwi5y1jPzeeer5QVH17Dldc1TdEOBYK0ATaCORK9ohe 7Z4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=MW91CMw5XJ5/fg7fpI3Y0BpYPQ2BPm7MVc6IBpCCeBI=; b=qtmJP1e0C0LGNMWgwdL2YA2idMRkMh3flA0Fw4gbiiAeBt1bcYqIbqGefyb8wZ6YiC TM01zryHFQvAeSYWU2wGRu45T3PYzjQHj4Ow5EHUNA0w2UvKNgqCOd8vTjGcet0dYt9z abC2cy2GAKziAIGdABdnzZ25JdSNBF5RRLgI1WyzSkRFmicZydQdXEQESIodAAdKNYnM 1eB4Z4G+WmGJtvCGk9cKNY1f/EyPUBZeGzSsxBKLlvtahf89wA3EmFVpzMULLLf1/QpG ZqCsQpYfiiRRb3LRXe1F3la+aD5LophkDJiKQ42ZoM7k3D8IIEX9t6sXFWzQ4lPYQHa6 J5zA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532940lz9hcQTAh0OfGid13SewwCz7peh8CuJLd/cW72imVCW/5Q 4XGyAaoB2qj30qfonEJDJcexiw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfj4Zu/upbCMJCgjcB0FE6fzs5lum/i0pCIHcDxOuGb0Tt5Af9O8qLOdi7MT7e2fmH4FUt4A== X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c018:: with SMTP id u24mr7026318iol.197.1634876946891; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u12sm3627904ioc.33.2021.10.21.21.29.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 00:29:05 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Eric Sunshine , Git List , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Derrick Stolee , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] pack-bitmap.c: more aggressively free in free_bitmap_index() Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:32:16AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Sunshine writes: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:40 PM Taylor Blau wrote: > >> The function free_bitmap_index() is somewhat lax in what it frees. There > >> are two notable examples: > >> > >> - While it does call kh_destroy_oid_map on the "bitmaps" map (which > >> maps) commit OIDs to their corresponding bitmaps, the bitmaps > >> themselves are not freed. Note here that we recycle already-freed > >> ewah_bitmaps into a pool, but these are handled correctly by > >> ewah_pool_free(). > > > > The parentheses placement seems off; it's not clear what the intent > > is. Perhaps either move the closing parenthesis to just before the > > comma or drop them altogether. > > Yeah, I think we can do without them and the sentence becomes > clearer (we can add a comma before "which", too). Yep, thanks both. Thanks, Taylor