From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 05:26:04 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fsck improvements Message-ID: <7vehxn9m37.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy writes: > 2011/11/5 Junio C Hamano : >> I am not sure what purpose patch 2 serves, though. When we find a checksum >> mismatch for an object in a packstream due to a single-bit error, we would >> still be able to salvage other objects in other parts of the pack as long >> as we have a good .idx file, and in such a case, wouldn't it be better if >> we attempted to find as many corrupt objects that we know we cannot >> recover as possible and tell the user about them, so that they can be >> skipped during the recovery process? > > It's the inconsistency in that for(;;) loop. If we are going to > salvage as many objects as we could, should we do "continue;" instead > of "break;" when unpack_entry() or check_sha1_signature() fails? I do not think making things worse for the sake of "consistency" is a good sell ;-). How hard would it be to make it also continue when these report a corruption?