On wo, 2015-12-30 at 16:02 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/reflog-walk.c b/reflog-walk.c
> > index 85b8a54..0ebd1da 100644
> > --- a/reflog-walk.c
> > +++ b/reflog-walk.c
> > @@ -221,6 +221,7 @@ void fake_reflog_parent(struct reflog_walk_info
> > *info, struct commit *commit)
> > struct commit_info *commit_info =
> > get_commit_info(commit, &info->reflogs, 0);
> > struct commit_reflog *commit_reflog;
> > + struct object *logobj;
>
> This thing is not initialized...
>
> > struct reflog_info *reflog;
> >
> > info->last_commit_reflog = NULL;
> > @@ -232,15 +233,20 @@ void fake_reflog_parent(struct
> > reflog_walk_info *info, struct commit *commit)
> > commit->parents = NULL;
> > return;
> > }
> > -
> > - reflog = &commit_reflog->reflogs->items[commit_reflog
> > ->recno];
> > info->last_commit_reflog = commit_reflog;
> > - commit_reflog->recno--;
> > - commit_info->commit = (struct commit *)parse_object(reflog
> > ->osha1);
> > - if (!commit_info->commit) {
> > +
> > + do {
> > + reflog = &commit_reflog->reflogs
> > ->items[commit_reflog->recno];
> > + commit_reflog->recno--;
> > + logobj = parse_object(reflog->osha1);
> > + } while (commit_reflog->recno && (logobj && logobj->type
> > != OBJ_COMMIT));
>
> But this loop runs at least once, so logobj will always have some
> sane value when the loop exits.
>
> > + if (!logobj || logobj->type != OBJ_COMMIT) {
>
> And the only case where this should trigger is when we ran out of
> recno. Am I reading the updated code correctly?
Yes, your description matches what I tried to implement.
> With the updated code, the number of times we return from this
> function is different from the number initially set to recno. I had
> to wonder if the caller cares and misbehaves, but the caller does
> not know how long the reflog is before starting to call
> get_revision() in a loop anyway, so it already has to deal with a
> case where it did .recno=20 and get_revision() did not return that
> many times. So this probably is safe.
That corresponds to what I see when experimenting with different
reflogs.
> > +test_expect_success 'reflog containing non-commit sha1s displays
> > properly' '
>
> In general, "properly" is a poor word to use in test description (or
> a commit log message or a bug report, for that matter), as the whole
> point of a test is to precisely define what is "proper".
>
> And the code change declares that a proper thing to do is to omit
> non-commit entries without segfaulting, so something like
>
> s/displays properly/omits them/
>
> perhaps?
I did find the test title a bit iffy but couldn't really figure out
why. What you're saying makes a lot of sense, will fix.
--
Dennis Kaarsemaker
www.kaarsemaker.net
--
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