[PATCH] GSoC2014 Microproject rewrite finish_bulk_checkin()

Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari <redacted>
---
 bulk-checkin.c |   12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/bulk-checkin.c b/bulk-checkin.c
index 118c625..feeff9f 100644
--- a/bulk-checkin.c
+++ b/bulk-checkin.c

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static struct bulk_checkin_state {
 static void finish_bulk_checkin(struct bulk_checkin_state *state)
 {
 	unsigned char sha1[20];
-	char packname[PATH_MAX];
+	struct strbuf packname;
 	int i;
 
 	if (!state->f)

@@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ static void finish_bulk_checkin(struct bulk_checkin_state *state)
 					 state->offset);
 		close(fd);
 	}
-
-	sprintf(packname, "%s/pack/pack-", get_object_directory());
-	finish_tmp_packfile(packname, state->pack_tmp_name,
+	
+	packname.len = packname.alloc = 64 + strlen(get_object_directory());
+	packname.buf = (char *)malloc(packname.len * sizeof(char));
+	sprintf(packname.buf, "%s/pack/pack-", get_object_directory());
+	finish_tmp_packfile(packname.buf, state->pack_tmp_name,
 			    state->written, state->nr_written,
 			    &state->pack_idx_opts, sha1);
 	for (i = 0; i < state->nr_written; i++)

@@ -53,7 +55,7 @@ static void finish_bulk_checkin(struct bulk_checkin_state *state)
 clear_exit:
 	free(state->written);
 	memset(state, 0, sizeof(*state));
-
+	free(packname.buf);
 	/* Make objects we just wrote available to ourselves */
 	reprepare_packed_git();
 }

-- 
1.7.9.5

> Rewrite bulk-checkin.c:finish_bulk_checkin() to use a strbuf for handling packname, and explain why this is useful.
> Also check if the first argument of pack-write.c:finish_tmp_packfile() can be made const.

Adding 64 to strlen(get_object_directory()) to accomodate sha1_to_hex(sha1) and itself.
Using the APIs for strbuf is giving me test failures(12/15) during t1050-large.sh 
So, I used the malloc() and free() instead.
Instead of having packname on stack and cause stackoverflow because of MAX_PATH ~ 4KB, have it on heap.
Can have first parameter to pack-write.c:finish_tmp_packfile() as const because packname is not required to be modified.

I apologise for my two earlier patches not being in proper format. I have finally got it working properly. Will make sure,
it does not happen again.

On 02/27/2014 08:02 PM, Faiz Kothari wrote:

This is not OK.  I promise you, the strbuf API works correctly if it is
used correctly.  (And if it really *were* broken, you should fix the
problem or at least diagnose and document it rather than working around it.)

Instead of having packname on stack and cause stackoverflow because of MAX_PATH ~ 4KB, have it on heap.
Can have first parameter to pack-write.c:finish_tmp_packfile() as const because packname is not required to be modified.

I apologise for my two earlier patches not being in proper format. I have finally got it working properly. Will make sure,
it does not happen again.

Almost.  This last set of comments should be moved to directly after the
"---" line.

But: please rather stick to *one* microproject and get it perfect, and
leave the others to other students.

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/

Hi,
Thanks for the remarks.
I'll stick to this micro project and follow the guidelines.
Yes, the strbuf API is perfectly OK. I was not getting to work it
properly, so I used malloc() / free() instead. My bad.
I'll resubmit the patch.
Thanks.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] wrote:

On 02/27/2014 08:02 PM, Faiz Kothari wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari <redacted>
---
 bulk-checkin.c |   12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/bulk-checkin.c b/bulk-checkin.c
index 118c625..feeff9f 100644
--- a/bulk-checkin.c
+++ b/bulk-checkin.c

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static struct bulk_checkin_state {
 static void finish_bulk_checkin(struct bulk_checkin_state *state)
 {
      unsigned char sha1[20];
-     char packname[PATH_MAX];
+     struct strbuf packname;
      int i;

      if (!state->f)

@@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ static void finish_bulk_checkin(struct bulk_checkin_state *state)
                                       state->offset);
              close(fd);
      }
-
-     sprintf(packname, "%s/pack/pack-", get_object_directory());
-     finish_tmp_packfile(packname, state->pack_tmp_name,
+
+     packname.len = packname.alloc = 64 + strlen(get_object_directory());
+     packname.buf = (char *)malloc(packname.len * sizeof(char));
+     sprintf(packname.buf, "%s/pack/pack-", get_object_directory());
+     finish_tmp_packfile(packname.buf, state->pack_tmp_name,
                          state->written, state->nr_written,
                          &state->pack_idx_opts, sha1);
      for (i = 0; i < state->nr_written; i++)

@@ -53,7 +55,7 @@ static void finish_bulk_checkin(struct bulk_checkin_state *state)
 clear_exit:
      free(state->written);
      memset(state, 0, sizeof(*state));
-
+     free(packname.buf);
      /* Make objects we just wrote available to ourselves */
      reprepare_packed_git();
 }
-- 1.7.9.5

quoted

Rewrite bulk-checkin.c:finish_bulk_checkin() to use a strbuf for handling packname, and explain why this is useful.
Also check if the first argument of pack-write.c:finish_tmp_packfile() can be made const.

Adding 64 to strlen(get_object_directory()) to accomodate sha1_to_hex(sha1) and itself.
Using the APIs for strbuf is giving me test failures(12/15) during t1050-large.sh
So, I used the malloc() and free() instead.

This is not OK.  I promise you, the strbuf API works correctly if it is
used correctly.  (And if it really *were* broken, you should fix the
problem or at least diagnose and document it rather than working around it.)

quoted

Instead of having packname on stack and cause stackoverflow because of MAX_PATH ~ 4KB, have it on heap.
Can have first parameter to pack-write.c:finish_tmp_packfile() as const because packname is not required to be modified.

I apologise for my two earlier patches not being in proper format. I have finally got it working properly. Will make sure,
it does not happen again.

Almost.  This last set of comments should be moved to directly after the
"---" line.

But: please rather stick to *one* microproject and get it perfect, and
leave the others to other students.

Michael

--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/