RE: svn commit: r1150368 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client: commit.c commit_util.c
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blair Zajac [mailto:blair_at_orcaware.com]
> Sent: zondag 24 juli 2011 16:09
> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Cc: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1150368 - in
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client: commit.c commit_util.c
> On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:50 AM, rhuijben_at_apache.org wrote:
> > Author: rhuijben
> > Date: Sun Jul 24 13:50:44 2011
> > New Revision: 1150368
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1150368&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Clear iterpools in two error conditions during commit to avoid deleting
> > with open handles when aborting fs transactions.
> > The txdelta part of this patch looks like a small regression introduced
> > switching from subpools to dual pool handling.
> > * subversion/libsvn_client/commit.c
> > (svn_client_commit5): Clear iterpool before aborting the edit to flush
> > most commonly passed scratch pool to the commit processing. This to
> > possible similar problems as that caught in svn_client__do_commit.
> > * subversion/libsvn_client/commit_util.c
> > (svn_client__do_commit): Clear iterpool when
> > fails. The txdelta infrastructure doesn't have a well defined abort
> > procedure so the current implementations rely on pool cleanup.
> > But when iterpool isn't cleared here we call the editor's abort
> > this cleanup runs.
> Do you mean destroy here, as that's what the commit does?
The first step of a destroy is a clear and it is really the clearing that
(I think the first clear should be a destroy, but I think the second one is
Received on 2011-07-24 16:41:08 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev