> On 10 Aug 2016, at 15:28, Jeff King <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:04:00PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> From: Lars Schneider <[email protected]>
>>
>> packet_write() has two shortcomings. First, it uses format_packet() which
>> lets the caller only send string data via "%s". That means it cannot be
>> used for arbitrary data that may contain NULs. Second, it will always
>> die on error.
>>
>> Add packet_write_gently() which writes arbitrary data and returns `0` for
>> success and `-1` for an error.
>
> So now we have packet_write() and packet_write_gently(), but they differ
> in more than just whether they are gentle. That seems like a weird
> interface.
>
> Should we either be picking a new name (e.g., packet_write_mem() or
> something), or migrating packet_write() to packet_write_fmt()?
Done in "[PATCH v5 08/15] pkt-line: rename packet_write() to packet_write_fmt()"
>> diff --git a/pkt-line.c b/pkt-line.c
>> index e6b8410..4f25748 100644
>> --- a/pkt-line.c
>> +++ b/pkt-line.c
>> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>> #include "run-command.h"
>>
>> char packet_buffer[LARGE_PACKET_MAX];
>> +char packet_write_buffer[LARGE_PACKET_MAX];
>
> Should this be static? I.e., are random other bits of the code allowed
> to write into it (I guess not because it's not declared in pkt-line.h).
static is better!
>> +int packet_write_gently(const int fd_out, const char *buf, size_t size)
>> +{
>> + if (size > PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN)
>> + return -1;
>> + packet_trace(buf, size, 1);
>> + memmove(packet_write_buffer + 4, buf, size);
>
> It looks like this iteration drops the idea of callers using a
> LARGE_PACKET_MAX buffer and only filling it at "buf+4" with
> PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN bytes (which is fine).
>
> I wonder if we still need PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN, or of it is just
> obscuring things. The magic number "4" still appears separately here,
> and it actually makes it harder to see that things are correct. I.e.,
> doing:
>
> if (size > sizeof(packet_write_buffer) - 4)
> return -1;
> memmove(packet_write_buffer + 4, buf, size);
>
> is more obviously correct, because you do not have to wonder about the
> relationship between the size of your buffer and the macro.
>
> It might still be worth having PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN public, though, if
> callers use it to size their input to packet_write_gently().
I agree. In a later patch I am using PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN inside pkt-line.c,
too. I will change it to your suggestion.
For now I would remove PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN because it should be an
implementation
detail of pkt-line.c (plus it is not used by anyone).
Thanks,
Lars--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
