From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.148]) (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 E847937A3CC for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 16:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761755574; cv=none; b=KePEd1b5b6cwO86Da64LpHhHcZnhA7TfuHQTayz0OCDkN6tq1sLH0FnIdVvU0Yg80J2lW24klKOjT4X8GyN5/cyT5Q3lhoXWoVTVRzi5Y+9D+oMmgIq0WJctSmL9jHflWjGDaNSp4CQfYTfNThtMEEut1gb0lcCv/3m9YIiwk/M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761755574; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZyND9bWxEtcRtS4BxJL1j6pfvx+s3TJjJ5aY6pzXf+o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=InVie110vgEFTnYyJOEd06uTKPJiZUzXICjPUKb5vZZa3AIbqtCItzjBE4jxsqkzXTYF7W55WYSGdqH7D891bvyt4P/nwbSOPUza6FQ6dfQDjevFqbGDG+bZLqpveYskDpYK1/bxmdnVS0cqE7Q/L6XSvxlCcFHftBaok7a69g8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=LYO0E6fw; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=zkVScCQF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="LYO0E6fw"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="zkVScCQF" Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DD8EC0038; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 12:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 29 Oct 2025 12:32:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; 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=fm2; t=1761755572; x=1761841972; bh=5qGY9AZ+Qw cAe3ZSpXE+LApnBuC4HEEMFh45yJRWJug=; b=LYO0E6fwpv38LGx8zRUbC/iIt2 I0PKNnXgbu5SxutIP+HDssZi2yNOfoGmvWNeoGfONnFlagzdMyfFic7icd9jzfma h0Ofd0jksApGC/knJqKp+bwJWHjsNZjwEAzdojAOKR9M8ZgETD8MstUndNbfzA7I TtG/dtcOp2mgipbd1WpYy6PUbhCLSt/QTfH7afmA9S+CNtwuibgpIK62jbRu1BuX EIsUGHcQc9V0K1usaf+ltuKInYBNhJtMTzkT0Qy4XJocbgwgyw4zpBimJjFO56YP 5MYubPpiJ1bVbEvUDVPcBO7XMFA6PBjs7LytpGk6k+RzFFw8F+TqnrJHJN/g== 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= 1761755572; x=1761841972; bh=5qGY9AZ+QwcAe3ZSpXE+LApnBuC4HEEMFh4 5yJRWJug=; b=zkVScCQFEs4op2T4ME50kC00/ccAUOvgLPMj32EmvUVBne80HRq mlxC+hXtsDS+UpVSh2fh8LgFy8h5tqNqGv1pLubTFcwGGnlgFAa/Tpw/xSV1cFo5 RrKyuRzsWAJdSNvicupGtLu98xU+LHS3stImFfRR5FmOGWysUcsCjVGmSEAZmNk7 rdAj+9yYcNNokWMOnDKbMPaPKeg0F5hNwVWUyjloEx6HKc5xWdW56jv99yh9a0ba GaWO1SXFCYV5++PTOSG9twTS8PdBVGZwmvW/bGDJqvMyGwBoDBsLKNOHxA9JCfOa eF3WyjFrVci1p3bORaHApqFYlRNjvOiN9fw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdduieegvddvucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtofdttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepieekueefhfetvdfftdegfeekhfffgefgfeeivddugeffgfffffevvedvieel ffdunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohephedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepshgrnhgurghlshestghruhhsthihthhoohhthhhprg hsthgvrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdp rhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohepvgiivghkihgvlhhnvgifrh gvnhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgt ohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 12:32:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: , Patrick Steinhardt , Ezekiel Newren Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/14] hash: expose hash context functions to Rust In-Reply-To: <20251027004404.2152927-10-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> (brian m. carlson's message of "Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:43:59 +0000") References: <20251027004404.2152927-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20251027004404.2152927-10-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 09:32:50 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain "brian m. carlson" writes: > +struct git_hash_ctx *git_hash_alloc(void) > +{ > + return malloc(sizeof(struct git_hash_ctx)); > +} Not an objection, but this looked especially curious to me because it has been customary to use xmalloc() for a thing like this. Going forward, is our intention that we'd explicitly handle OOM allocation failures ourselves, at least in the Rust part of the code base?