Re: [PATCH 1/2] Introduce remove_dir_recursively()

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > +int remove_dir_recursively(char *path, int len, int only_empty)
> > +{
> > ...
> > +		namlen = strlen(e->d_name);
> > +		if (len + namlen > PATH_MAX ||
> > +				!memcpy(path + len, e->d_name, namlen) ||
> > +				(path[len + namlen] = '\0') ||
> > +				lstat(path, &st))
> > +			; /* fall thru */
> > +		else if (S_ISDIR(st.st_mode)) {
> > +			if (!remove_dir_recursively(path, len + namlen,
> > +						only_empty))
> > +				continue; /* happy */
> > +		} else if (!only_empty &&
> > +				len + namlen + 1 < PATH_MAX &&
> > +				!unlink(path))
> > +			continue; /* happy, too */
> > +
> > +		/* path too long, stat fails, or non-directory still exists */
> > +		ret = -1;
> > +		break;
> 
> Is it only me who finds the first if () condition way too
> convoluted and needs to read three times to convince oneself
> that it is doing a sane thing?
> 
> Please, especially...
> 
>  * For $DEITY's sake, memcpy() returns pointer to dst which you
>    know is not NULL. so !memcpy() is always false here, which
>    might be _convenient_ for you and the compiler but not for
>    a human reader of the code who needs to blink twice wondering
>    if you meant !memcmp().
> 
>  * Same for (path[] = '\0'), wondering if it is misspelled
>    (path[] == '\0').

Okay, will fix (with an evil goto).

BTW it just hit me that this magic reliance on a buffer of size PATH_MAX 
is not good at all.  It even hit _me_ while developing that series.

So I'll change that to a strbuf, too.  (Which will fix the convoluted 
logic quite some, incidentally.)

Ciao,
Dscho