You are correct, which shows that since all tests pass, we need to
come up with better cases for this function.
As for a solution, I believe that the best way to go for it is to
dir_iterator's implementation to have an "Option to iterate over
directory paths before vs. after their contents" (something predicted
in the commit that created it). If it iterates over directories after
all of its contents (currently it does so before) we just need to
check if the entry is a directory and if so, rmdir() it. Does that
make sense?
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Daniel Ferreira <bnmvco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Use dir_iterator to traverse through remove_subtree()'s directory tree,
>> avoiding the need for recursive calls to readdir(). Simplify
>> remove_subtree()'s code.
>>
>> A conversion similar in purpose was previously done at 46d092a
>> ("for_each_reflog(): reimplement using iterators", 2016-05-21).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Ferreira <bnmvco@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> This is a second-version patch of the Google Summer of Code microproject for
>> refactoring recursive readdir() calls to use dir_iterator instead. v1 can be
>> found in:
>>
>> https://public-inbox.org/git/CAGZ79kZwT-9mHTiOJ5CEjk2wDFkn6+NcogjX0=vjhsAh16ANYg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#mae023e7a7d7626f00e0923833c4359f5af493730
>>
>> Additionally, for debugging purposes I turned remove_subtree() into a no-op
>> and ran git tests. Some failures were at:
>>
>> * t2000-checkout-cache-clash.sh
>> * t2003-checkout-cache-mkdir.sh
>>
>> If you guys could check those files out and warn me if any additional tests
>> would be welcome, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> entry.c | 28 +++++++---------------------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/entry.c b/entry.c
>> index c6eea240b..3cb92592d 100644
>> --- a/entry.c
>> +++ b/entry.c
>> @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
>> #include "blob.h"
>> #include "dir.h"
>> #include "streaming.h"
>> +#include "iterator.h"
>> +#include "dir-iterator.h"
>>
>> static void create_directories(const char *path, int path_len,
>> const struct checkout *state)
>> @@ -46,29 +48,13 @@ static void create_directories(const char *path, int path_len,
>>
>> static void remove_subtree(struct strbuf *path)
>> {
>> - DIR *dir = opendir(path->buf);
>> - struct dirent *de;
>> - int origlen = path->len;
>> -
>> - if (!dir)
>> - die_errno("cannot opendir '%s'", path->buf);
>> - while ((de = readdir(dir)) != NULL) {
>> - struct stat st;
>> -
>> - if (is_dot_or_dotdot(de->d_name))
>> - continue;
>> -
>> - strbuf_addch(path, '/');
>> - strbuf_addstr(path, de->d_name);
>> - if (lstat(path->buf, &st))
>> - die_errno("cannot lstat '%s'", path->buf);
>> - if (S_ISDIR(st.st_mode))
>> - remove_subtree(path);
>> - else if (unlink(path->buf))
>> + struct dir_iterator *diter = dir_iterator_begin(path->buf);
>> +
>> + while (dir_iterator_advance(diter) == ITER_OK) {
>> + if (unlink(diter->path.buf))
>> die_errno("cannot unlink '%s'", path->buf);
>> - strbuf_setlen(path, origlen);
>> }
>> - closedir(dir);
>> +
>> if (rmdir(path->buf))
>> die_errno("cannot rmdir '%s'", path->buf);
>
> Even though it's very nice that lots of code is deleted. This is not
> entirely correct, is it? Before this patch, rmdir() is called for
> every recursive remove_subtree() call. After this patch, it's only
> called once (and likely fails unless you have no subdirectories).
>
>> }
>> --
>> 2.12.1.433.g82305b74f.dirty
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Duy