Re: [PATCH 0/4] fsck improvements

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



2011/11/5 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>:
> I am not sure what purpose patch 2 serves, though. When we find a checksum
> mismatch for an object in a packstream due to a single-bit error, we would
> still be able to salvage other objects in other parts of the pack as long
> as we have a good .idx file, and in such a case, wouldn't it be better if
> we attempted to find as many corrupt objects that we know we cannot
> recover as possible and tell the user about them, so that they can be
> skipped during the recovery process?

It's the inconsistency in that for(;;) loop. If we are going to
salvage as many objects as we could, should we do "continue;" instead
of "break;" when unpack_entry() or check_sha1_signature() fails?
-- 
Duy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]