Re: [PATCH v2 05/18] refs.c: extract function search_for_subdir()
On 05/03/2012 10:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano<gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Hrm. The old code used to reset "dir" to NULL before breaking, so the
>> entire function used to return NULL. Now, it calls search_for_subdir(),
>> which calls search_ref_dir() and gets NULL in entry, and returns NULL.
>>
>> Wouldn't we end up returning the original parameter "dir" instead of NULL
>> in that case? Would that make a difference?
>
> In other words, isn't something like this necessary?
You are right. Thanks for catching this.
Show 25 quoted lines
> Otherwise, wouldn't do_for_each_ref() called for a non-existing "refs/"
> subhierarchy in "base" start from the top-level packed_dir/loose_dir
> returned from find_containing_dir(), and end up running do_for_each_ref_in_dirs()
> with both top-level packed_dir/loose_dir and traversing all of them, only
> to find nothing?
>
> refs.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
> index 9f2da16..af5da5f 100644
> --- a/refs.c
> +++ b/refs.c
> @@ -390,8 +390,10 @@ static struct ref_dir *find_containing_dir(struct ref_dir *dir,
> refname + dirname.len,
> (slash + 1) - (refname + dirname.len));
> subdir = search_for_subdir(dir, dirname.buf, mkdir);
> - if (!subdir)
> + if (!subdir) {
> + dir = NULL;
> break;
> + }
> dir = subdir;
> }
>--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>