From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] attr: don't confuse prefixes with leading directories Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:28:10 -0500 Message-ID: <20120110192810.GA16018@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120110070300.GA17086@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4F0BFE6E.6080904@alum.mit.edu> <20120110171100.GA18962@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120110180820.GA15273@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120110182140.GB15273@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vlipf9xbe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 10 20:28:23 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RkhMo-0001d8-1Q for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:28:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932637Ab2AJT2N (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:28:13 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:33896 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932175Ab2AJT2M (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:28:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 13194 invoked by uid 107); 10 Jan 2012 19:35:06 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:35:06 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:28:10 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vlipf9xbe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:23:01AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I'm not sure if the right solution is to change the popping loop to: > > > > /* we will never run out of stack, because we always have the root */ > > while (attr_stack->origin) { > > ... > > Yeah, that makes sense, as that existing check "attr_stack &&" was a > misguided defensive coding, that was _not_ defensive at all as we didn't > do anything after we stop iterating from that loop and without checking > dereferenced attr_stack->origin, which was a simple bogosity. > > > > > Or to be extra defensive and put: > > > > if (!attr_stack) > > die("BUG: we ran out of attr stack!?"); > > > > after the loop, or to somehow handle the case of an empty attr stack > > below (which is hard to do, because it can't be triggered, so I have no > > idea what it would mean). > > And this is even more so. I wasn't clear: the second one is "even more so" making sense, or "even more so" misguided defensive coding? -Peff