Re: [PATCH 0/4] fsck improvements
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 5, 2011, 03:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8Ch0m5KQ--VWzsmyNq2R-uHsvSYofHP8L+qcvhRrqgoKQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v1utnd8yf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
2011/11/5 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
Show 7 quoted lines
> 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?
-- Duy