Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04 PM Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernard...@usp.br> writes:
>
>> > @@ -598,7 +599,8 @@ static int grep_tree(struct grep_opt *opt, const
>> > struct pathspec *pathspec,
>> > free(data);
>> > } else if (recurse_submodules && S_ISGITLINK(entry.mode)) {
>> > hit |= grep_submodule(opt, pathspec, &entry.oid,
>> > - base->buf, base->buf + tn_len);
>> > + base->buf, base->buf + tn_len,
>> > + 1); /* ignored */
>>
>> The trailing comment is misleading. In the context of reviewing
>> this patch, we can probably tell it applies only to that "1", but
>> if you read only the postimage, the "ignored" comment looks as if
>> the call itself is somehow ignored by somebody unspecified. It is
>> not clear at all that it is only about the final parameter.
>>
>> If you must...
>>
>> hit |= grep_submodule(opt, pathspec, &entry.oid,
>> base->buf, base->buf + tn_len,
>> 1 /* ignored */);
>
> Yeah, I suggested adding an "/* ignored */" comment, but I was indeed
> thinking about something like this.
>
>> ... is a reasonable way to write it.
Thanks. In this case, I am not sure if the comment here really
helps. If anything, shouldn't there be a comment near the top of
grep_submodule() that says 'cached bit is meaningful only when you
feed an empty oid, aka "not grepping inside a tree object"'?
