Subject: Re: ds/sparse-cone, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2019, #03; Fri, 11)

From: Eric Wong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 01:50:52 +0000

Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > * ds/sparse-cone (2019-10-08) 17 commits
> >  - sparse-checkout: cone mode should not interact with .gitignore
> >  - sparse-checkout: write using lockfile
> >  - sparse-checkout: update working directory in-process
> >  - sparse-checkout: sanitize for nested folders
> >  - read-tree: show progress by default
> >  - unpack-trees: add progress to clear_ce_flags()
> >  - unpack-trees: hash less in cone mode
> >  - sparse-checkout: init and set in cone mode
> >  - sparse-checkout: use hashmaps for cone patterns
> >  - sparse-checkout: add 'cone' mode
> >  - trace2: add region in clear_ce_flags
> >  - sparse-checkout: create 'disable' subcommand
> >  - sparse-checkout: add '--stdin' option to set subcommand
> >  - sparse-checkout: 'set' subcommand
> >  - clone: add --sparse mode
> >  - sparse-checkout: create 'init' subcommand
> >  - sparse-checkout: create builtin with 'list' subcommand
> >
> >  Management of sparsely checked-out working tree has gained a
> >  dedicated "sparse-checkout" command.
> >
> >  Seems not to play well with the hashmap updates.
> 
> Hrm. I had sent out links to the three fixups needed to make the build
> green:
> 
> https://public-inbox.org/git/[email-masked]/
> 
> In particular, the patches to squash were:
> 
> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/f74259754971b427a14e6290681e18950824b99d
> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/124c8bc08e974e76ca7d956dc07eb288e71d639e
> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/45948433d1b48ff513fbd37f134c0f1491c78192

> diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
> index 0135f9e2180..9efcdc9aacd 100644
> --- a/dir.c
> +++ b/dir.c

<snip>
> @@ -706,8 +710,8 @@ static void add_pattern_to_hashsets(struct pattern_list *pl, struct path_pattern
> 
>  clear_hashmaps:
>  	warning(_("disabling cone pattern matching"));
> -	hashmap_free(&pl->parent_hashmap, 1);
> -	hashmap_free(&pl->recursive_hashmap, 1);
> +	hashmap_free(&pl->parent_hashmap);
> +	hashmap_free(&pl->recursive_hashmap);

I just took a brief look, but that appears to leak memory.

"hashmap_free(var, 1)" should be replaced with
"hashmap_free_entries(var, struct foo, member)"

Only "hashmap_free(var, 0)" can become "hashmap_free(var)"