Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <[email protected]> writes:
> b968372279 ("read-cache: unlink old sharedindex files", 2017-03-06)
> introduced get_shared_index_expire_date using unsigned long to track
> the modification times of a shared index.
>
> dddbad728c ("timestamp_t: a new data type for timestamps", 2017-04-26)
> shows why that might problematic so move to time_t instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <[email protected]>
> ---
> read-cache.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
> index 7b1354d759..5525d8e679 100644
> --- a/read-cache.c
> +++ b/read-cache.c
> @@ -2625,9 +2625,9 @@ static int write_split_index(struct index_state *istate,
>
> static const char *shared_index_expire = "2.weeks.ago";
>
> -static unsigned long get_shared_index_expire_date(void)
> +static time_t get_shared_index_expire_date(void)
> {
> - static unsigned long shared_index_expire_date;
> + static time_t shared_index_expire_date;
> static int shared_index_expire_date_prepared;
>
> if (!shared_index_expire_date_prepared) {
After this line, the post-context reads like this:
git_config_get_expiry("splitindex.sharedindexexpire",
&shared_index_expire);
shared_index_expire_date = approxidate(shared_index_expire);
shared_index_expire_date_prepared = 1;
}
return shared_index_expire_date;
Given that the function returns the value obtained from
approxidate(), which is approxidate_careful() in disguise, time_t is
not as appropriate as timestamp_t, no?
IOW, what if time_t were narrower than timestamp_t?
> @@ -2643,7 +2643,7 @@ static unsigned long get_shared_index_expire_date(void)
> static int should_delete_shared_index(const char *shared_index_path)
> {
> struct stat st;
> - unsigned long expiration;
> + time_t expiration;
>
> /* Check timestamp */
> expiration = get_shared_index_expire_date();
