Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] bundle: support fsck message configuration

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Nov 27, 2024, 05:44 UTC
Message-ID: <Z0axyWrT8n8reQWl@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <20241127005707.319881-3-jltobler@gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 06:57:05PM -0600, Justin Tobler wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> diff --git a/bundle.c b/bundle.c
> index 485033ea3f..4e53ddfca2 100644
> --- a/bundle.c
> +++ b/bundle.c
> @@ -631,12 +631,12 @@ int unbundle(struct repository *r, struct bundle_header *header,
>  	     struct unbundle_opts *opts)
>  {
>  	struct child_process ip = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> -	enum verify_bundle_flags flags = 0;
> +	struct unbundle_opts opts_fallback = { 0 };
>  
> -	if (opts)
> -		flags = opts->flags;
> +	if (!opts)
> +		opts = &opts_fallback;

Tiny nit: you could've introduced the fallback in the first commit already. Like this you first introduce the code pattern and then change it immediately in the subsequent commit.

Not worth a reroll though.

Show 9 quoted lines

> diff --git a/bundle.h b/bundle.h
> index 6a09cc7bfb..df17326b09 100644
> --- a/bundle.h
> +++ b/bundle.h
> @@ -41,6 +41,13 @@ int verify_bundle(struct repository *r, struct bundle_header *header,
>  
>  struct unbundle_opts {
>  	enum verify_bundle_flags flags;
> +	/**

Nit: s|/**/|/*|

Again, not worth a reroll from my point of view, also with the recent discussion at <877c8yti5n.fsf@iotcl.com> in mind where we basically went "We don't care about them".

Patrick