Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] object-file: fix a unpack_loose_header() regression in 3b6a8db3b03
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2022-05-12 23:39:24
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2022-05-12 · [PATCH v2 4/4] object-file: fix a unpack_loose_header() regression in 3b6a8db3b03 · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
diff --git a/object-file.c b/object-file.c index 5ffbf3d4fd..b5d1d12b68 100644 --- a/object-file.c +++ b/object-file.c@@ -2623,8 +2623,12 @@ int read_loose_object(const char *path, goto out; } - if (unpack_loose_header(&stream, map, mapsize, hdr, sizeof(hdr), - NULL) < 0) { + switch (unpack_loose_header(&stream, map, mapsize, hdr, sizeof(hdr), + NULL)) { + case ULHR_OK: + break; + case ULHR_BAD: + case ULHR_TOO_LONG: error(_("unable to unpack header of %s"), path); goto out; }
Regarding this hunk, since we only care about a single "did we get
any error, or did we unpack OK" bit, I think this should be more
like
if (unpack_loose_header(...) != ULHR_OK) {
error(_("unable to..."), path);
goto out;
}
It is true, as Ævar mentioned, that there is another place in the
same file that uses switch() in loose_object_info(), and it should
remain to be switch() on the returned enum because it wants to
behave differnetly depending on the kind of error it gets. But that
is not a reason to make this part that only cares about a single
"did it fail?" into a switch and force future developers to add a
useless case arm.
I left it there as posted in the previous round because I was too
lazy ;-) and also it is something we can clean up with a follow up
patch outside the series. As my today's focus has been to reduce
the number of topics waiting for a reroll, I'd rather leave things
that are not outright broken but needs clean up as they are for the
sake of expediency.
Thanks.