On 10/10/2017 8:56 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
OK, I think that makes more sense. But note the p->num_objects thing I
mentioned. If I do:
git pack-objects .git/objects/pack/pack </dev/null
then I have a pack with zero objects, which I think we'd similarly want
to return early from. I.e., I think we need:
if (p->num_objects)
return;
Technically that also covers open_pack_index() failure, too, but that's
a subtlety I don't think we should rely on.
True. I notice that the early part of the two functions look almost
identical. Do we need error condition handling for the other one,
too?
I prefer to fix the problem in all code clones when they cause review
friction, so I'll send a fifth commit showing just the diff for these
packfile issues in sha1_name.c. See patch below.
Should open_pack_index() return a non-zero status if the packfile is
empty? Or, is there a meaningful reason to have empty packfiles?
Thanks,
-Stolee
diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c
index 49ba67955..9f8a33e82 100644
--- a/sha1_name.c
+++ b/sha1_name.c
@@ -153,7 +153,9 @@ static void unique_in_pack(struct packed_git *p,
uint32_t num, last, i, first = 0;
const struct object_id *current = NULL;
- open_pack_index(p);
+ if (open_pack_index(p) || !p->num_objects)
+ return;
+
num = p->num_objects;
last = num;
while (first < last) {
@@ -513,7 +515,9 @@ static void find_abbrev_len_for_pack(struct
packed_git *p,
uint32_t num, last, first = 0;
struct object_id oid;
- open_pack_index(p);
+ if (open_pack_index(p) || !p->num_objects)
+ return;
+
num = p->num_objects;
last = num;
while (first < last) {
