Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 7/16/2014 9:36 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> +static void git_config_check_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> + if (the_config_set.hash_initialized)
>>> + return;
>>> + git_configset_init(&the_config_set);
>>> + git_config(config_set_callback, &the_config_set);
>>> +}
>>
>> So, you're now ignoring the return value of git_config. What is the
>> rationale for this? In particular, why did you reject the "die"
>> possibility (I understood that you were inclined to take this option, so
>> I'm curious why you changed your mind).
>>
>
> The errors (non accessible, non existent files etc) were already being caught by
> git_config_early(). Since git_config() only returns positive values except
> the weird race case you mentioned, I thought the die confused the reader
> of the patch more than it provided error checking. I also tried myself
> simulating the race condition but failed. All the callers of git_config()
> also ignore the return value, so I ended up ignoring the return value myself.
OK. My preference would be to die, but your argument makes sense.
> But I do think that an access_or_warn() check should be put on git config --file
> and git_configset_add_file since other parts of git follow it. What do
> you think about it, still I will send followup patch correcting the git config
> --file condition where it silently ignores the file access error and continues?
I think it should be done, but should not be your priority (i.e. it's
good to do it, but only if the patch is trivial enough).
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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