git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
To: gitster@pobox.com
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jrnieder@gmail.com, peff@peff.net,
	Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH] revision.c: Remove unneeded check for NULL
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:40:19 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1435347619-29410-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> (raw)

The function is called only from one place, which makes sure
to have `interesting_cache` not NULL. Additionally it is a
dereferenced a few lines before unconditionally, which would
result in a segmentation fault.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---

Notes:
    > So I think the right solution is just to drop the conditional entirely.
    > The current code is not wrong (it is always a noop). What you have here
    > actually misbehaves; it does not update the cache slot when it has
    > become UNINTERESTING. That does not produce wrong results, but it loses
    > the benefit of the cache in some cases.
    
    After reading the code a bit more, I agree.
    
    > I'm having trouble parsing this sentence.  Do you mean that limit_list()
    > only calls still_interesting() (and thus, indirectly,
    > everybody_uninteresting()), with the second parameter equal to the
    > address of the local interesting_cache variable, so it can never be
    > NULL?
    
    I completely reworded the commit message.
    
    > Should there be
    >
    >        if (!interesting_cache)
    >                die("BUG: &interesting_cache == NULL");
    >
    > checks at the top of still_interesting and everybody_uninteresting to
    > futureproof this?
    
    I don't think this is necessary as these functions are local functions
    so when somebody wants to use them they will be aware of the limitations.
    
    > This code seems to be underdocumented.
    
    I am not a expert in this area of the code, so I hoped Peff
    would document it if he feels like so.

 revision.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
index 3ff8723..ab97ffd 100644
--- a/revision.c
+++ b/revision.c
@@ -361,8 +361,8 @@ static int everybody_uninteresting(struct commit_list *orig,
 		list = list->next;
 		if (commit->object.flags & UNINTERESTING)
 			continue;
-		if (interesting_cache)
-			*interesting_cache = commit;
+
+		*interesting_cache = commit;
 		return 0;
 	}
 	return 1;
-- 
2.4.1.345.gab207b6.dirty

             reply	other threads:[~2015-06-26 19:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-26 19:40 Stefan Beller [this message]
2015-06-27  6:07 ` [PATCH] revision.c: Remove unneeded check for NULL Jeff King
2015-06-30 22:48   ` Jonathan Nieder

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=1435347619-29410-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com \
    --to=sbeller@google.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).