On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 08:57:01AM +0800, shejialuo wrote:

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:36:29AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

shejialuo [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

+static int packed_fsck(struct ref_store *ref_store,
+		       struct fsck_options *o,
 		       struct worktree *wt)
 {
+	struct packed_ref_store *refs = packed_downcast(ref_store,
+							REF_STORE_READ, "fsck");
+	struct stat st;
+	int ret = 0;
+	int fd;
 
 	if (!is_main_worktree(wt))
 		return 0;

I do not think it is worth a reroll only to improve this one, but
for future reference, initializing "fd = -1" and jumping to cleanup
here instead of "return 0" would future-proof the code better.  This
is especially so, given that in a few patches later, we would add a
strbuf that is initialized before this "we do not do anything
outside the primary worktree" short-cut, and many "goto cleanup"s we
see in this patch below would jump to cleanup to strbuf_release() on
that initialized but unused strbuf.  Jumping there with negative fd
to cleanup that already avoids close(fd) for negative fd would be
like jumping there with initialized but unused strbuf.  Having a
single exit point ("cleanup:" label) would help future evolution of
the code, by making it easier to add more resource-acquriing code to
this function in the future.

You are right. Actually, I just want to avoid assigning the `fd` to -1.
However, I didn't realize that I would initialize the strbuf later.
After waking up, I have suddenly realized this problem.

If other reviewers don't have any comments for this new version, I will
send out a reroll. We have already iterated many times, if we could make
it better, why not?

I don't have anything else to add to this version, thanks!

Patrick