Re: [PATCH v5 04/16] promisor-remote: implement promisor_remote_get_direct()
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
Date: 2019-05-30 20:46:51
Hi, On Thu, 30 May 2019, Derrick Stolee wrote:
On 4/9/2019 12:11 PM, Christian Couder wrote:quoted
From: Christian Couder <redacted> +{ + int i, missing_nr = 0; + int *missing = xcalloc(oid_nr, sizeof(*missing)); + struct object_id *old_oids = *oids; + struct object_id *new_oids; + int old_fetch_if_missing = fetch_if_missing; + + fetch_if_missing = 0;This global 'fetch_if_missing' swap seems very fragile. I'm guessing you are using it to prevent a loop when calling oid_object_info_extended() below. Can you instead pass a flag to the method that disables the fetch_if_missing behavior?
FWIW I mentioned the very same concern here: https://public-inbox.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1903272300020.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet/ The situation is *pretty* bad by now. I see `fetch_if_missing` mentioned 25 times in `master`, and all but one are in .c files or in cache.h. The flag is actually used only in `oid_object_info_extended()`, and that function accepts an `unsigned flags`, so one might think that it could be extended to accept also a `OBJECT_INFO_LOOKUP_FETCH_IF_MISSING`. But then, there are many callers of that function, some of them also pretty low in the food chain. For example, `oid_object_info()` (does not accept `flags`) or `read_object()` (does not accept flags either). So it looks as if the idea to pass this flag down the call chain entailed a pretty serious avalanche effect. An alternative that strikes me as inelegant, still, but nevertheless better would be to move `fetch_if_missing` into `struct repository`. Ciao, Dscho