Re: [PATCH 05/11] cache-tree: simplify locking logic

Martin Ågren [off-list ref] writes:

After we have taken the lock using `LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR`, we know that
`newfd` is non-negative. So when we check for exactly that property
before calling `write_locked_index()`, the outcome is guaranteed.

If we write and commit successfully, we set `newfd = -1`, so that we can
later avoid calling `rollback_lock_file` on an already-committed lock.
But we might just as well unconditionally call `rollback_lock_file()` --
it will be a no-op if we have already committed.

All in all, we use `newfd` as a bool and the only benefit we get from it
is that we can avoid calling a no-op. Remove `newfd` so that we have one
variable less to reason about.

Nicely explained.  Makes sense.

Thanks.