Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] refs.c: remove lock_fd from struct ref_lock

From: Michael Haggerty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:49:12 +0200

On 04/15/2015 12:25 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> The 'lock_fd' is the same as 'lk->fd'. No need to store it twice so remove
> it. You may argue this introduces more coupling as we need to know more
> about the internals of the lock file mechanism, but this will be solved in
> a later patch.
> 
> No functional changes intended.

This whole series LGTM; however, I suggest that this patch be split up.
See below.

> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  refs.c | 16 ++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
> index 14e52ca..4066752 100644
> --- a/refs.c
> +++ b/refs.c
> [...]
> @@ -2335,8 +2333,8 @@ static struct ref_lock *lock_ref_sha1_basic(const char *refname,
>  		goto error_return;
>  	}
>  
> -	lock->lock_fd = hold_lock_file_for_update(lock->lk, ref_file, lflags);
> -	if (lock->lock_fd < 0) {
> +	if (hold_lock_file_for_update(lock->lk, ref_file, lflags) < 0) {
> +		last_errno = errno;
>  		if (errno == ENOENT && --attempts_remaining > 0)
>  			/*
>  			 * Maybe somebody just deleted one of the
> [...]

Here you add the line "last_errno = errno". It is a good change, but it
is not part of removing ref_lock::lock_fd.

I suggest that you move this change to a separate commit. You might also
consider moving the new line to the "else" clause, because it's really
about preserving errno around the call to error() and preparing for
"goto error_return".

With or without this split, this patch is

Reviewed-by: Michael Haggerty <[email-masked]>

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
[email-masked]