David Turner <dtur...@twopensource.com> writes:

> Refactor resolve_ref_1 in terms of a new function read_raw_ref, which
> is responsible for reading ref data from the ref storage.
>
> Later, we will make read_raw_ref a pluggable backend function, and make
> resolve_ref_unsafe common.
>
> Testing done: Hacked in code to run both old and new version of
> resolve_ref_1 and compare all outputs, failing dramatically if outputs
> differed.  Ran test suite.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Turner <dtur...@twopensource.com>
> Helped-by: Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com>
> ---
>  refs/files-backend.c | 265 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 159 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c
> index fd664d6..ef5f28d 100644
> --- a/refs/files-backend.c
> +++ b/refs/files-backend.c
> @@ -1377,10 +1377,9 @@ static struct ref_entry *get_packed_ref(const char 
> *refname)
>  
>  /*
>   * A loose ref file doesn't exist; check for a packed ref.  The
> - * options are forwarded from resolve_safe_unsafe().
> + * options are forwarded from resolve_ref_unsafe().
>   */
>  static int resolve_missing_loose_ref(const char *refname,
> -                                  int resolve_flags,
>                                    unsigned char *sha1,
>                                    int *flags)

The last parameter must be made "unsigned int *flags" ...

> +static int read_raw_ref(const char *refname, unsigned char *sha1,
> +                     struct strbuf *symref, struct strbuf *sb_path,
> +                     unsigned int *flags)
>  {

... because the last parameter here is "unsigned int *flags", and
you later pass the same variable to both.

> -     for (;;) {
> -             const char *path;
> +     for(;;) {

This is an unwelcome change.

> +                             break;
> +                     if (resolve_missing_loose_ref(refname, sha1, flags)) 

This line has a trailing whitespace.

> +     for (symref_count = 0; symref_count < MAXDEPTH; symref_count++) {
> +             int read_flags = 0;

... and this must be "unsigned read_flags = 0".

You can of course standardize on signed int, but because this is a
collection of flag bits, there is no reason not to choose unsigned.

I _think_ I can fix everything up before pushing out, so please
check what will appear on 'pu' before rerolling.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to