From: Karthik Nayak Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2026 09:24:11 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] wt-status: pass struct repository and wt_status through function parameters Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260205121545.36442-1-shreyanshpaliwalcmsmn@gmail.com> Shreyansh Paliwal writes: >> > Some functions in wt-status.c relied on the_repository because no >> > repository instance was available in their local scope. >> > There is also a specific case in wt_status_check_rebase() where the >> > worktree can be NULL, so accessing wt->repo may lead to a segfault. >> > >> > Update these functions to accept a struct repository or struct >> > wt_status parameter, and adjust callers accordingly. Replace the >> > remaining uses of the_repository in these functions with the >> > passed-in repository instance. >> > >> > This removes the use of the_repository global variable from >> > wt-status.c completely. >> > >> >> Okay, but this doesn't fix the issue I stated in the previous commit. I >> do wonder if we can re-order the commits and pass the repo struct to >> functions like 'get_branch()'. > > Sorry, I didn’t fully think through what you were pointing out in the > previous version. I initially assumed you were only referring to the > specific call involving wt_status_check_rebase(NULL, state). > > So struct worktree *wt is not guaranteed to be defined and can be > NULL. Because of that, relying on wt->repo is unsafe. > Instead, rather than depending on the worktree for repository access (wt->repo), > we can pass struct repository explicitly through the relevant call > stack, like in functions get_branch() and wt_status_check_bisect(). > I hope I have understood it correctly. > > Best, > Shreyansh I would say its not that black and white. There's a lot of context around it. There are places where `struct worktree *wt` should definitely be defined. So we have to take it on a case by case basis. Which is what makes these refactors a bit tricky. Karthik