Re: [PATCH 01/20] chunk-format: note that pair_chunk() is unsafe

> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 04:58:23PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > There are no callers of the "safe" version yet, but we'll add some in
> > subsequent patches.
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> > +int pair_chunk_unsafe(struct chunkfile *cf,
> > +		      uint32_t chunk_id,
> > +		      const unsigned char **p)
> >  {
> > -	return read_chunk(cf, chunk_id, pair_chunk_fn, p);
> > +	size_t dummy;
> > +	return pair_chunk(cf, chunk_id, p, &dummy);
> 
> I have always disliked functions that require you to pass a non-NULL
> pointer to some value that you may or may not want to have that function
> fill out. So I was going to suggest something along the lines of
> "pair_chunk() should tolerate a NULL fourth argument instead of filling
> out the size unconditionally".
> 
> But that's (a) the whole point of the series ;-), and (b) unnecessary,
> since this function is going to go away entirely by the end of the
> series, too.