On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 07:45:41PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 04:58:23PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

quoted

There are no callers of the "safe" version yet, but we'll add some in
subsequent patches.

Makes sense.

quoted

+int pair_chunk_unsafe(struct chunkfile *cf,
+		      uint32_t chunk_id,
+		      const unsigned char **p)
 {
-	return read_chunk(cf, chunk_id, pair_chunk_fn, p);
+	size_t dummy;
+	return pair_chunk(cf, chunk_id, p, &dummy);

I have always disliked functions that require you to pass a non-NULL
pointer to some value that you may or may not want to have that function
fill out. So I was going to suggest something along the lines of
"pair_chunk() should tolerate a NULL fourth argument instead of filling
out the size unconditionally".

But that's (a) the whole point of the series ;-), and (b) unnecessary,
since this function is going to go away entirely by the end of the
series, too.

Yeah, for the record, I think a dummy variable like this is usually a
code smell. And it truly is a "problem" here, because we are
intentionally doing the unsafe and stupid thing. :)

-Peff