Re: [PATCH v8 11/11] convert: add filter.<driver>.process option
- From
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 30, 2016, 19:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <EF3723DE-B34A-4314-94C9-E3EB38EAB92A@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <2a604438-b6cd-876d-0ec2-90027dea99b9@gmail.com>
Show 13 quoted lines
> On 27 Sep 2016, at 17:37, Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote: > > Part second of the review of 11/11. > > W dniu 20.09.2016 o 21:02, larsxschneider@gmail.com pisze: > >> + >> + if (!drv->process && (CAP_CLEAN & wanted_capability) && drv->clean) > > This is just a very minor nitpicking, but wouldn't it be easier > to read with those checks reordered? > > + if ((wanted_capability & CAP_CLEAN) && !drv->process && drv->clean)
OK
Show 11 quoted lines
>> +
>> + if (start_command(process)) {
>> + error("cannot fork to run external filter '%s'", cmd);
>> + kill_multi_file_filter(hashmap, entry);
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>
> I guess there is a reason why we init hashmap entry, try to start
> external process, then kill entry of unable to start, instead of
> trying to start external process, and adding hashmap entry when
> we succeed?Yes. This way I can reuse the kill_multi_file_filter() function.
Show 5 quoted lines
>> + >> + sigchain_push(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN); > > I guess that this is here to handle errors writing to filter > by ourself, isn't it?
Yes.
Show 5 quoted lines
>> + error("external filter '%s' does not support long running filter protocol", cmd);
>
> We could have described the error here better.
>
> + error("external filter '%s' does not support filter protocol version 2", cmd);OK
Show 8 quoted lines
>> +static void read_multi_file_filter_values(int fd, struct strbuf *status) {
>
> This is more
>
> +static void read_multi_file_filter_status(int fd, struct strbuf *status) {
>
> It doesn't read arbitrary values, it examines 'metadata' from
> filter for "status=<foo>" lines.True!
Show 7 quoted lines
>> + if (pair[0] && pair[0]->len && pair[1]) {
>> + if (!strcmp(pair[0]->buf, "status=")) {
>> + strbuf_reset(status);
>> + strbuf_addbuf(status, pair[1]);
>> + }
>
> So it is last status=<foo> line wins behavior?Correct.
Show 5 quoted lines
> >> + } > > Shouldn't we free 'struct strbuf **pair', maybe allocated by the > strbuf_split_str() function, and reset to NULL?
True. strbuf_list_free() should be enough.
>> >> + fflush(NULL); > > Why this fflush(NULL) is needed here?
This flushes all open output streams. The single filter does the same.
Show 9 quoted lines
>>
>> + if (fd >= 0 && !src) {
>> + if (fstat(fd, &file_stat) == -1)
>> + return 0;
>> + len = xsize_t(file_stat.st_size);
>> + }
>
> Errr... is it necessary? The protocol no longer provides size=<n>
> hint, and neither uses such hint if provided.We require the size in write_packetized_from_buf() later.
Show 14 quoted lines
>> + >> + err = strlen(filter_type) > PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN; >> + if (err) >> + goto done; > > Errr... this should never happen. We control which capabilities > we pass, it can be only "clean" or "smudge", nothing else. Those > would always be shorter than PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN. > > Never mind that that is "command=smudge\n" etc. that needs to > be shorter that PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN! > > So, IMHO it should be at most assert, and needs to be corrected > anyway.
OK!
Show 6 quoted lines
> This should never happen, PATH_MAX everywhere is much shorter
> than PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN / LARGE_PACKET_MAX. Or is it?
>
> Anyway, we should probably explain or warn
>
> error("path name too long: '%s'", path);OK
Show 6 quoted lines
>> + /* >> + * Something went wrong with the protocol filter. >> + * Force shutdown and restart if another blob requires filtering! > > Is this exclamation mark '!' here necessary? >
No.
Thanks, Lars