On 03/26/2015 12:57 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
+static int unpack_sha1_header_to_strbuf(git_zstream *stream, unsigned char *map,
+ unsigned long mapsize,
+ struct strbuf *header)
+{
+ unsigned char buffer[32], *cp;
+ unsigned long bufsiz = sizeof(buffer);
+ int status;
+
+ status = unpack_sha1_header(stream, map, mapsize, buffer, bufsiz);
+
+ if (status) {
+ strbuf_add(header, buffer, stream->next_out - buffer);
+ return status;
+ }
+
+ do {
+ status = git_inflate(stream, 0);
+ strbuf_add(header, buffer, stream->next_out - buffer);
+ for (cp = buffer; cp < stream->next_out; cp++)
+ if (!*cp)
+ /* Found the NUL at the end of the header */
+ return 0;
+ stream->next_out = buffer;
+ stream->avail_out = bufsiz;
+ } while (status == Z_OK);
+ return -1;
A caller of unpack_sha1_header() gets the return from git_inflate();
I wonder if we should be returning "status" here for consistency,
perhaps?
Although the caller only checks for negative values for failure. For
consistency it would be better to return status as unpack_sha1_header()
does.
--
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