Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Prevent git from rehashing 4GiB files

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2023, 17:02 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqedhtji66.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <MW5PR16MB50791EDD3D006EFBE8DBBCB3AFD6A@MW5PR16MB5079.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>

Jason Hatton <jhatton@globalfinishing.com> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> We could probably write the below to do the same thing.
>
> void fill_stat_data(struct stat_data *sd, struct stat *st)
> {
>       sd->sd_ctime.sec = (unsigned int)st->st_ctime;
>       sd->sd_mtime.sec = (unsigned int)st->st_mtime;
>       sd->sd_ctime.nsec = ST_CTIME_NSEC(*st);
>       sd->sd_mtime.nsec = ST_MTIME_NSEC(*st);
>       sd->sd_dev = st->st_dev;
>       sd->sd_ino = st->st_ino;
>       sd->sd_uid = st->st_uid;
>       sd->sd_gid = st->st_gid;
>       sd->sd_size = st->st_size;
> +      if (sd->sd_size == 0 && st->st_size!= 0) {
> +            sd->sd_size = 1;
> +      }
> }

The above is a fairly straight-forward inlining (except that it does explicit comparisons with zero) of the helper function the version of patch under discussion added, and uses 1 instead of (1<<31) as an arbigrary nonzero number that can be used to work around the issue.

So I agree with you that it would do the same thing. I am not surprised if it also gets scolded by Coverity the same way, though.