From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 20:56:50 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/18] refs.c: extract function search_for_subdir() Message-ID: <7vmx5pdlv1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <7v4nrxf3m2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Junio C Hamano 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? 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; }