Re: [PATCH 07/24] ls-files: correct index argument to get_convert_attr_ascii()
From: Stefan Beller <hidden>
Date: 2018-08-15 18:56:57
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:15 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
write_eolinfo() does take an istate as function argument and it should be used instead of the_index. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <redacted> --- builtin/ls-files.c | 17 +++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)diff --git a/builtin/ls-files.c b/builtin/ls-files.c index 7233b92794..7f9919a362 100644 --- a/builtin/ls-files.c +++ b/builtin/ls-files.c@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static void write_eolinfo(const struct index_state *istate, struct stat st; const char *i_txt = ""; const char *w_txt = ""; - const char *a_txt = get_convert_attr_ascii(&the_index, path); + const char *a_txt = get_convert_attr_ascii(istate, path);
Going by the commit message this patch should end here?
-static void show_dir_entry(const char *tag, struct dir_entry *ent) +static void show_dir_entry(const struct index_state *istate, + const char *tag, struct dir_entry *ent)
[...]
- if (!dir_path_match(&the_index, ent, &pathspec, len, ps_matched)) + if (!dir_path_match(istate, ent, &pathspec, len, ps_matched))
[...]
- write_eolinfo(NULL, NULL, ent->name); + write_eolinfo(istate, NULL, ent->name);
but here we need to pass through the istate, which is why we adjust the dir_path_match while we're here
- show_dir_entry(tag_other, ent); + show_dir_entry(istate, tag_other, ent);
[...]
- show_dir_entry(tag_killed, dir->entries[i]); + show_dir_entry(istate, tag_killed, dir->entries[i]);
and having to adjust more callers here
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -228,7 +229,7 @@ static void show_ce(struct repository *repo, struct dir_struct *dir,
- } else if (match_pathspec(&the_index, &pathspec, fullname, strlen(fullname), + } else if (match_pathspec(repo->index, &pathspec, fullname, strlen(fullname),
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -264,7 +265,7 @@ static void show_ru_info(const struct index_state *istate)
- if (!match_pathspec(&the_index, &pathspec, path, len, + if (!match_pathspec(istate, &pathspec, path, len,
These seem more or less unrelated to the commit message or the code changes above. Maybe mention these as a "while at it" or separate them out in their own commit? thanks, Stefan