From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/23] remember commit/tag parse failures
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:41:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191024234111.GC32602@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191024232546.70565-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:25:46PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> Firstly, this patch is not about remembering, but about not setting
> anything, so I think that the title should be something like:
>
> commit, tag: set parsed only if no parsing error
True. I had also played with actually remembering via a bit, which I
think is how I ended up thinking about it that way. You could argue that
it is "not forgetting", which is remembering. :) But I think your
suggested title is better.
> Incidentally, the check that you mentioned in PATCH 02 is probably no
> longer necessary. The tests all pass even with the following diff:
>
> diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c
> index e12e7998ad..086011d944 100644
> --- a/commit.c
> +++ b/commit.c
> @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ struct tree *repo_get_commit_tree(struct repository *r,
> struct object_id *get_commit_tree_oid(const struct commit *commit)
> {
> struct tree *tree = get_commit_tree(commit);
> - return tree ? &tree->object.oid : NULL;
> + return &tree->object.oid;
> }
Ah, I see the confusion you had earlier. The check I meant in patch 2
(and here) was the one in write_graph_chunk_data(), which checks for a
non-NULL tree even after we just saw a successful parse.
I agree that getting rid of the check in get_commit_tree_oid() is
unlikely to cause any bugs, but there are still cases where it could
help. Namely if I choose to ignore the parse failure (because I want to
see the parts of the commit struct that we did manage to get), then I'd
like to be able to ask whether we have a valid tree, like:
oid = get_commit_tree_oid(commit);
if (!oid)
do something...
With the revert you showed above, that's dangerous, because we'd get a
bogus value like "8" (because the oid is offset 8 bytes in the struct
which we've dereferenced as NULL).
You could obviously use "get_commit_tree()" instead, which would let you
compare to NULL. But it seemed simpler to leave the extra safety in
place.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-24 23:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-18 4:41 [PATCH 0/23] parsing and fsck cleanups Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:42 ` [PATCH 01/23] parse_commit_buffer(): treat lookup_commit() failure as parse error Jeff King
2019-10-24 3:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 18:01 ` Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:43 ` [PATCH 02/23] parse_commit_buffer(): treat lookup_tree() " Jeff King
2019-10-24 23:12 ` Jonathan Tan
2019-10-24 23:22 ` Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:45 ` [PATCH 03/23] parse_tag_buffer(): treat NULL tag pointer " Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:47 ` [PATCH 04/23] remember commit/tag parse failures Jeff King
2019-10-24 3:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 23:25 ` Jonathan Tan
2019-10-24 23:41 ` Jeff King [this message]
2019-10-18 4:48 ` [PATCH 05/23] fsck: stop checking commit->tree value Jeff King
2019-10-24 3:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-18 4:49 ` [PATCH 06/23] fsck: stop checking commit->parent counts Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:51 ` [PATCH 07/23] fsck: stop checking tag->tagged Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:54 ` [PATCH 08/23] fsck: require an actual buffer for non-blobs Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:56 ` [PATCH 09/23] fsck: unify object-name code Jeff King
2019-10-24 6:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 18:07 ` Jeff King
2019-10-25 3:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-25 21:20 ` Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:56 ` [PATCH 10/23] fsck_describe_object(): build on our get_object_name() primitive Jeff King
2019-10-24 6:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-18 4:57 ` [PATCH 11/23] fsck: use oids rather than objects for object_name API Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:58 ` [PATCH 12/23] fsck: don't require object structs for display functions Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:58 ` [PATCH 13/23] fsck: only provide oid/type in fsck_error callback Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:58 ` [PATCH 14/23] fsck: only require an oid for skiplist functions Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:59 ` [PATCH 15/23] fsck: don't require an object struct for report() Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:59 ` [PATCH 16/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct blob" for fsck_blob() Jeff King
2019-10-18 4:59 ` [PATCH 17/23] fsck: drop blob struct from fsck_finish() Jeff King
2019-10-18 5:00 ` [PATCH 18/23] fsck: don't require an object struct for fsck_ident() Jeff King
2019-10-18 5:00 ` [PATCH 19/23] fsck: don't require an object struct in verify_headers() Jeff King
2019-10-18 5:00 ` [PATCH 20/23] fsck: rename vague "oid" local variables Jeff King
2019-10-18 5:01 ` [PATCH 21/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct tag" for fsck_tag() Jeff King
2019-10-18 5:01 ` [PATCH 22/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct commit" for fsck_commit() Jeff King
2019-10-18 5:02 ` [PATCH 23/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct tree" for fsck_tree() Jeff King
2019-10-24 23:49 ` [PATCH 0/23] parsing and fsck cleanups Jonathan Tan
2019-10-25 3:11 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191024234111.GC32602@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.