Re: [PATCH 1/2] fsck_handle_reflog_sha1(): new function

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

 



Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> New function, extracted from fsck_handle_reflog_ent(). The extra
> is_null_sha1() test for the new reference is currently unnecessary, as
> reflogs are deleted when the reference itself is deleted. But it
> doesn't hurt, either.

I think we would crash with today's code in such a situation, but
wouldn't we want to diagnose a 0{40} object name on the "new" side
of the reflog entry as an error in the endgame state?

I do share uneasiness with Dscho that this is tightening what used
to be an OK state into an error, but I haven't thought about how
serious it would be.

Thanks.
--
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]