Matheus Tavares <[email protected]> writes:
This hunk, which claims to have 25 lines in the postimage ...
> @@ -44,6 +45,25 @@
> * dir_iterator_advance() again.
> */
>
> +/*
> + * Flags for dir_iterator_begin:
> + *
> + * - DIR_ITERATOR_PEDANTIC: override dir-iterator's default behavior
> + * in case of an error at dir_iterator_advance(), which is to keep
> + * looking for a next valid entry. With this flag, resources are freed
> + * and ITER_ERROR is returned immediately. In both cases, a meaningful
> + * warning is emitted. Note: ENOENT errors are always ignored so that
> + * the API users may remove files during iteration.
> + *
> + * - DIR_ITERATOR_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS: make dir-iterator follow symlinks.
> + * i.e., linked directories' contents will be iterated over and
> + * iter->base.st will contain information on the referred files,
> + * not the symlinks themselves, which is the default behavior.
> + * Recursive symlinks are skipped with a warning and broken symlinks
> + * are ignored.
> + */
> +#define DIR_ITERATOR_PEDANTIC (1 << 0)
> +#define DIR_ITERATOR_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS (1 << 1)
> +
> struct dir_iterator {
> /* The current path: */
> struct strbuf path;
> @@ -58,29 +78,38 @@ struct dir_iterator {
... adds 20 lines, making the postimage 26 lines long.
Did you hand edit your patch? It is OK to do so, as long as you
know what you are doing ;-). Adjust the length of the postimage on
the @@ ... @@ line to make it consistent with the patch text, and
also make sure a tweak you do here won't make later patches not
apply.
