On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> To be fair, my original patch had a different worry that I didn't
> bother with: what if one of the _other_ callers of "get_short_sha1()"
> passed in -1 to it. I only handled the -1 case in th eone path care
> about in that first RFC for testing. So I'm *not* suggesting you
> should apply my first version,, It has issues too.
Actually, all the other cases seem to be "parse a SHA1 with a known
length", so they really don't have a negative length. So this seems
ok, and is easier to verify than the "what all contexts might use
DEFAULT_ABBREV" thing. There's only a few callers, and it's a static
function so it's easy to check it locally in sha1_name.c.
Linus