On 10/9/2017 9:49 AM, Jeff King wrote:
On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:49:42PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
@@ -505,6 +506,65 @@ static int extend_abbrev_len(const struct object_id *oid,
void *cb_data)
return 0;
}
+static void find_abbrev_len_for_pack(struct packed_git *p,
+ struct min_abbrev_data *mad)
+{
+ int match = 0;
+ uint32_t num, last, first = 0;
+ struct object_id oid;
+
+ open_pack_index(p);
+ num = p->num_objects;
+ last = num;
+ while (first < last) {
[...]
Your cover letter lists:
* Silently skip packfiles that fail to open with open_pack_index()
as a change from the previous version. But this looks the same as the
last round. I think this _does_ end up skipping such packfiles because
p->num_objects will be zero. Is it worth having a comment to that
effect (or even just an early return) to make it clear that the
situation is intentional?
Although...
+ /*
+ * first is now the position in the packfile where we would insert
+ * mad->hash if it does not exist (or the position of mad->hash if
+ * it does exist). Hence, we consider a maximum of three objects
+ * nearby for the abbreviation length.
+ */
+ mad->init_len = 0;
+ if (!match) {
+ nth_packed_object_oid(&oid, p, first);
+ extend_abbrev_len(&oid, mad);
If we have zero objects in the pack, what would nth_packed_object_oid()
be returning here?
So I actually think we do want an early return, not just when
open_packed_index() fails, but also when p->num_objects is zero.
-Peff
Sorry about this. I caught this while I was writing my cover letter and
amended my last commit to include the following:
if (open_pack_index(p))
return;
After I amended the commit, I forgot to 'format-patch' again. I can send
a diff between the commits after review has calmed.
Thanks,
-Stolee
