Re: [PATCH 2/3] unpack-trees: fix path search bug in verify_absent

[Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>]

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:59:47PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> This explanation makes sense.  However, this:
> 
> > @@ -289,7 +289,8 @@ static int unpack_nondirectories(int n, unsigned long mask, unsigned long dirmas
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int unpack_callback(int n, unsigned long mask, unsigned long dirmask, struct name_entry *names, struct traverse_info *info)
> > +static int unpack_callback(int n, unsigned long mask, unsigned long dirmask,
> > +		struct name_entry *names, struct traverse_info *info)
> >  {
> >  	struct cache_entry *src[5] = { NULL, };
> >  	struct unpack_trees_options *o = info->data;
> 
> ... is distracting during review, and this:
> 
> > @@ -517,22 +518,22 @@ static int verify_clean_subdirectory(struct cache_entry *ce, const char *action,
> >  	namelen = strlen(ce->name);
> >  	pos = index_name_pos(o->src_index, ce->name, namelen);
> >  	if (0 <= pos)
> > -		return cnt; /* we have it as nondirectory */
> > +		return 0; /* we have it as nondirectory */
> >  	pos = -pos - 1;
> >  	for (i = pos; i < o->src_index->cache_nr; i++) {
> 
> ... is not accounted for in the commit message.  Intended or not, that is 
> the question.

Those are trivial readability improvements in the context of the patch.

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:59:43PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Sign-off?

Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>

on all three patches.