From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAA020401 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:22:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752249AbdFURWn (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:22:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:33269 "EHLO mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751974AbdFURWm (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:22:42 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id w12so31943242pfk.0 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:22:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=SXp8oX6gNE2j6hFz/R97+kLxbB2jaSTGzlb+dfhk3Dc=; b=AdsGvpGjNojMRC9lngDGtuq1M8FYqpLAB7tShwJ3n1HdRZ0ZuXmX32vOCcfFyThNei BulgtqxGh4/QnHTIppvKbRfgSfnb+pqfqk6JQ5eF5HFHUorRSmVnK5jsvRYHg9gnZkgu pVUeHiZ36RYgjh2NSlP2Tz7pvCCATNOJYNIEHcbrUSaWtwwlZ9C5I60HDAOhLAYQK836 Adnxe+04gTcb4EOAfW/Q46pnhLtfI+sPtHeagAhRrHMId8MpBNxAmusaEAXa7JdMT3fq gJPdNSOJq5yEp7NO0wwBEA0kzG/o8J38ubZ0p0M/kpMKn0Q6kx5sZUxWCf3895i8lHYv acvg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=SXp8oX6gNE2j6hFz/R97+kLxbB2jaSTGzlb+dfhk3Dc=; b=Q7t7EOs04vtT2aMJB/kGMqSPJV/gsvTd/kJ0Y4z4dwrNvlL5/MTsnaZ3asnAbxTB0J waAHqPNAnAzPw5/m+75H4C33fv+tryVQLYYHObNkjqOJ8/bwzJ9lmoFRA6W/RweWryrx k6hW/5HMRT0D+YNarXP5AH37ZtA4DvzhiE385ZYc/xmNLpm623ZC7OOan/e7HrePy6Qu XOJ8pb4ONfB9xN4OoWt/zdzvFCrxizmQyXenfA0CiuRp5yED/UoxIPq/s3i5BSLYaKsq 73GzfXGyQ27qU5xbs/rmuYT92OjCCsvNPaKSvYmzIR23EnO6ay9MfdD4v6ksCjYRZjIo sjaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwsdatNsXJFX3Ttb3guW+RvOlwUyYtYdyD2PGS+2z53hPhF264t dufBTTcYCZWgpg== X-Received: by 10.99.37.70 with SMTP id l67mr38171492pgl.212.1498065761555; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:b0bd:d7d3:4f2e:5016]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c66sm31347226pfl.81.2017.06.21.10.22.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:22:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] sha1_file: rename LOOKUP_UNKNOWN_OBJECT References: <93c459ee90fac0d040d262bef072188b7ea69af0.1497920092.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:22:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: <93c459ee90fac0d040d262bef072188b7ea69af0.1497920092.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:03:09 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > The LOOKUP_UNKNOWN_OBJECT flag was introduced in commit 46f0344 > ("sha1_file: support reading from a loose object of unknown type", > 2015-05-03) in order to support a feature in cat-file subsequently > introduced in commit 39e4ae3 ("cat-file: teach cat-file a > '--allow-unknown-type' option", 2015-05-03). Despite its name and > location in cache.h, this flag is used neither in > read_sha1_file_extended() nor in any of the lookup functions, but used > only in sha1_object_info_extended(). > > Therefore rename this flag to OBJECT_INFO_ALLOW_UNKNOWN_TYPE, taking the > name of the cat-file flag that invokes this feature, and move it closer > to the declaration of sha1_object_info_extended(). Also add > documentation for this flag. All of the above makes sense, but ... > diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h > index 4d92aae0e..e2ec45dfe 100644 > --- a/cache.h > +++ b/cache.h > @@ -1207,7 +1207,6 @@ extern char *xdg_cache_home(const char *filename); > > /* object replacement */ > #define LOOKUP_REPLACE_OBJECT 1 > -#define LOOKUP_UNKNOWN_OBJECT 2 > extern void *read_sha1_file_extended(const unsigned char *sha1, enum object_type *type, unsigned long *size, unsigned flag); > static inline void *read_sha1_file(const unsigned char *sha1, enum object_type *type, unsigned long *size) > { > @@ -1866,6 +1865,8 @@ struct object_info { > */ > #define OBJECT_INFO_INIT {NULL} > > +/* Allow reading from a loose object file of unknown/bogus type */ > +#define OBJECT_INFO_ALLOW_UNKNOWN_TYPE 2 ... this contradicts the analysis given, doesn't it? Does something break if we change this to 1 (perhaps because in some cases this bit reach read_sha1_file_extended())? I doubt it, but leaving this to still define the bit to 2 makes readers wonder why.