From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6868D2D59E8 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 08:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771922473; cv=none; b=jDCTlET723baSNOoSwU5tQ5oU30w83rptxIKLUs6k5TSYKMZmfHJdFFayzQqbOD8gCSsGh58qduMrnn9aFPlZhZ9CH7Ei6C7xZy0ML1yuwBp4W3dg6uzpHxdd4iCxLF3Opi0/eo3C0dtd/YXu5tCe+ZfDo5iit/pERALpZp3s2A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771922473; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+U/FaeJsiuUhKng7lAMTcU54WPfIY93IfXgIXBvQVoo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=p2UrU0QowR/hldk7df3+YCQvwFOn1VQLXsdQ4Da2uw54oWI/EDGkz30KLJmKtHhy4l5skR/3k5rIjYylVUl6d3Gsscj66FMdN2X+BskdsN6Hdpm8Bo1PKyHVSwGXFrcsAWhGJKEeBq+bZz77dXmCyc63MQ93okbKGeOOwIibxEc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=RFqKQdqJ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=VvZg2fwQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="RFqKQdqJ"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="VvZg2fwQ" Received: from phl-compute-11.internal (phl-compute-11.internal [10.202.2.51]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0FE14001C1; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 03:41:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-03 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-11.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 24 Feb 2026 03:41:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1771922471; x=1772008871; bh=mpTVjPA5rF HJf/j1WyAGl5ktCP1qM2HCrKvO6kpxy50=; b=RFqKQdqJV8bMYFyPviBwTLnR9u gtpMJtNK3QinS1PS87j7ZHeqMzdsRkLS+wL3kbwxJoG2gCjm+EoXvf12kzc/Y2Ip agViOgFNOWyhMB0dckWHx+kqS0ENaRfIMyrTaWkDW847t/jzVAqk8slRHQCzndpJ mEdegYgJI5sq9dYqUec8GgwRqkwG9hfSTF2MpHheQ4/Q9+xS04xiCpapgZfX3CR4 TrKnpG46ZatvyrdvfmhAw1OvatMhXrVsjaJXHV6zteS1T7Fcvgr7Xw7ID/lv4dqL xcvuTPjhehmrcaoZ2qnpOkhBwA2qt1qapkLH+iDpA1PX14zNE0zox79eZ6sg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1771922471; x=1772008871; bh=mpTVjPA5rFHJf/j1WyAGl5ktCP1qM2HCrKv O6kpxy50=; b=VvZg2fwQ/9txfj5hz058XYFJWvRlDBs3hzl3N4FzJ1OGVvjaMTT uHS6kMMUHXUidtKex/Fjdu2xIb/babxmLdrSu52L1fTHw5PBVJkcvfZp70dBJ4SA A82e6AQ5ZxPfmiSdbsNjZcGiWIlIp406BnwrBI34+cgqFS0LqQkWEtIAYtL+eQyT kjJbsJHyM1mR6YSwx3oVD2SHlUU6HMXqbFZgMYWueeINcOFwYOUGi3eX8eAFb0Pa HtEtG0+jsdfOzHinASvbbBs7Iz+dhbIrVaRh0ghNIzjPULopxnlkqm1X2uxrWePe Csdu9DI7FzWONVxzeYfSQTGreiHchFhEe9w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgddvfeeljeduucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertd dttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrghtrhhitghkucfuthgvihhnhhgrrhguthcuoehpshesphhk shdrihhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevkeekfffhiedtleduiefgjedttedvledvud ehgfeugedugffhueekhfejvdektdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgr mhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedvpdhmoh guvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm pdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 03:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id c6a29203 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 24 Feb 2026 08:41:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:41:06 +0100 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] odb: make object database sources pluggable Message-ID: References: <20260223-b4-pks-odb-source-pluggable-v1-0-253bac1db598@pks.im> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 01:59:51PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt writes: > > > I forgot to note that this series is based on top of 7c02d39fc2 (The 6th > > batch, 2026-02-20) with the following two series merged into it: > > > > - ps/odb-for-each-object at 3565faf28c (odb: drop unused > > `for_each_{loose,packed}_object()` functions, 2026-01-26) > > > > - ps/object-info-bits-cleanup at 732ec9b17b (odb: convert > > `odb_has_object()` flags into an enum, 2026-02-12) > > With the above base, [09/17] fails to apply, as the function > signature of odb_source_loose_read_object_info() no longer has > "unsigned flags" after "int flags" turns into "enum > object_info_flags flags" in f6516a5241 (odb: convert object info > flags into an enum, 2026-02-12). Indeed. It seems like I mis-resolved the conflict that happens when those two patch series are merged together. I properly resolved it in the header, but not in the implementation. The fun part is that this compiles cleanly with Clang 20. I would have expected a warning here that the function signatures are different. I tried to play around with -Weverything, but couldn't get it to produce the expected warning. Oh, well... > +++ b/object-file.c > @@ -543,9 +543,19 @@ static int read_object_info_from_path(struct odb_source *source, > int odb_source_loose_read_object_info(struct odb_source *source, > const struct object_id *oid, > struct object_info *oi, > - unsigned flags) > + enum object_info_flags flags) > > Tweaking the patch (e.g., "unsigned" -> "enum object_info_flags") to > make it apply was trivial, so there is no need to resend. Hopefully > there is no semantic conflicts due to confused bases (the result > compiled and linked fine). Yeah. I'll rebuild my patch series on top of the base that you have constructed. Thanks! Patrick