Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hrm. The old code used to reset "dir" to NULL before breaking, so the
> entire function used to return NULL. Now, it calls search_for_subdir(),
> which calls search_ref_dir() and gets NULL in entry, and returns NULL.
>
> Wouldn't we end up returning the original parameter "dir" instead of NULL
> in that case? Would that make a difference?
In other words, isn't something like this necessary?
Otherwise, wouldn't do_for_each_ref() called for a non-existing "refs/"
subhierarchy in "base" start from the top-level packed_dir/loose_dir
returned from find_containing_dir(), and end up running do_for_each_ref_in_dirs()
with both top-level packed_dir/loose_dir and traversing all of them, only
to find nothing?
refs.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
index 9f2da16..af5da5f 100644
--- a/refs.c
+++ b/refs.c
@@ -390,8 +390,10 @@ static struct ref_dir *find_containing_dir(struct ref_dir *dir,
refname + dirname.len,
(slash + 1) - (refname + dirname.len));
subdir = search_for_subdir(dir, dirname.buf, mkdir);
- if (!subdir)
+ if (!subdir) {
+ dir = NULL;
break;
+ }
dir = subdir;
}
--
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