Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/35] transport: use get_refs_via_connect to get refs

From: Brandon Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:17:15 -0800

On 02/26, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Brandon Williams wrote:
> 
> > Remove code duplication and use the existing 'get_refs_via_connect()'
> > function to retrieve a remote's heads in 'fetch_refs_via_pack()' and
> > 'git_transport_push()'.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> >  transport.c | 18 ++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> I like the diffstat.
> 
> [...]
> > +++ b/transport.c
> > @@ -230,12 +230,8 @@ static int fetch_refs_via_pack(struct transport *transport,
> >  	args.cloning = transport->cloning;
> >  	args.update_shallow = data->options.update_shallow;
> >  
> > -	if (!data->got_remote_heads) {
> > -		connect_setup(transport, 0);
> > -		get_remote_heads(data->fd[0], NULL, 0, &refs_tmp, 0,
> > -				 NULL, &data->shallow);
> > -		data->got_remote_heads = 1;
> > -	}
> > +	if (!data->got_remote_heads)
> > +		refs_tmp = get_refs_via_connect(transport, 0);
> 
> The only difference between the old and new code is that the old code
> passes NULL as 'extra_have' and the new code passes &data->extra_have.
> 
> That means this populates the data->extra_have oid_array.  Does it
> matter?
> 
> > @@ -541,14 +537,8 @@ static int git_transport_push(struct transport *transport, struct ref *remote_re
> >  	struct send_pack_args args;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > -	if (!data->got_remote_heads) {
> > -		struct ref *tmp_refs;
> > -		connect_setup(transport, 1);
> > -
> > -		get_remote_heads(data->fd[0], NULL, 0, &tmp_refs, REF_NORMAL,
> > -				 NULL, &data->shallow);
> > -		data->got_remote_heads = 1;
> > -	}
> > +	if (!data->got_remote_heads)
> > +		get_refs_via_connect(transport, 1);
> 
> not a new problem, just curious: Does this leak tmp_refs?

Maybe, though its removed by this patch.

> 
> Same question as the other caller about whether we mind getting
> extra_have populated.

I don't think its a problem to have extra_have populated, least I
haven't seen anything to lead me to believe it would be a problem.

-- 
Brandon Williams