Re: [PATCH 4/5] odb: remove read loop for found objects

[Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>]

On 26/10/14 08:56AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 04:48:23PM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote:
> > On 26/10/13 09:36AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > > diff --git a/odb.c b/odb.c
> > > index 69a4c203bc..095183aec0 100644
> > > --- a/odb.c
> > > +++ b/odb.c
> > > @@ -265,7 +265,6 @@ static enum odb_read_status do_oid_object_info_extended(struct object_database *
> > >  	struct strbuf corrupt_err = STRBUF_INIT;
> > >  	const struct object_id *real = oid;
> > >  	enum odb_read_status ret;
> > > -	int already_retried = 0;
> > >  	bool corrupt = false;
> > >  
> > >  	if (flags & OBJECT_INFO_LOOKUP_REPLACE)
> > > @@ -277,38 +276,39 @@ static enum odb_read_status do_oid_object_info_extended(struct object_database *
> > >  	if (!odb_source_read_object_info(odb->inmemory_objects, oid, oi, flags, NULL))
> > >  		return 0;
> > >  
> > > -	while (1) {
> > > +	ret = odb_source_read_object_info(odb->source, real, oi, flags,
> > > +					  &corrupt_err);
> > 
> > Here is try to read the object, the backend is responsible for handling
> > any retries internally that it cares about.
> > 
> > > +	if (!ret)
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +	if (ret != ODB_READ_NOT_FOUND)
> > > +		corrupt = true;
> > 
> > If the repsitory is correct, does it even make sense to continue to try
> > and fetch the missing object? I wonder if we should set `ret =
> > ODB_READ_ERROR` and `goto out`?
> 
> I think I tend to agree. I don't want to do it as part of this commit
> though, which is a plain refactoring that shouldn't change semantics.
> I'll add a commit on top though.

Ok, sounds good to me!

-Justin