From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] quickfetch(): Prevent overflow of the rev-list command line Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:21:09 +0200 Message-ID: <4A55FCD5.2020908@viscovery.net> References: <200907091134.45492.johan@herland.net> <4A55E100.9010700@viscovery.net> <200907091552.44545.johan@herland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List , Peter Krefting , "Shawn O. Pearce" , Alex Riesen , Jeff King To: Johan Herland X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 09 16:21:27 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MOuV3-0002R2-UZ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:21:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760857AbZGIOVP (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:21:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760844AbZGIOVP (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:21:15 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:57570 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760511AbZGIOVO (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:21:14 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MOuUn-0005Ps-Iw; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:21:09 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.96]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D7B6B7; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:21:09 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: <200907091552.44545.johan@herland.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johan Herland schrieb: > On Thursday 09 July 2009, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> Shouldn't you reset signal(SIGPIPE) to its previous value? > > Done (provided that the sigchain_push/pop infrastructure works the way > I expect). I'm not sure, either. Peff? > +test_expect_success 'quickfetch should handle ~1000 refs (on Windows)' ' > + > + git gc && > + head=$(git rev-parse HEAD) && > + branchprefix="$head refs/heads/branch" && > + for i in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > + for j in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > + for k in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > + echo "$branchprefix$i$j$k" >> .git/packed-refs > + done > + done > + done && > + ( > + cd cloned && > + git fetch && > + git fetch > + ) > + > +' This test fails on Windows without the code change and passes with the code change. So, it's a good test. But actually I meant you to make a test that triggers the SIGPIPE that would kill git-fetch if it were not ignored. This one doesn't trigger it, either. -- Hannes