Re: [PATCH 06/21] Refactor tag name verification loop to use index 'i' instead of incrementing pointer 'tag_line'

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

 



Hi,

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Johan Herland wrote:

> diff --git a/mktag.c b/mktag.c
> index 4dbefab..2e70504 100644
> --- a/mktag.c
> +++ b/mktag.c
> @@ -81,19 +81,22 @@ static int verify_tag(char *data, unsigned long size)
>  	memcpy(type, type_line + 5, type_len);
>  	type[type_len] = '\0';
>  
> -	/* Verify that the object matches */
> -	if (verify_object(sha1, type))
> -		return error("char%d: could not verify object %s", 7, sha1_to_hex(sha1));
> -
> -	/* Verify the tag-name: we don't allow control characters or spaces in it */
> -	tag_line += 4;
> -	for (;;) {
> -		unsigned char c = *tag_line++;
> -		if (c == '\n')
> -			break;
> -		if (c > ' ')
> -			continue;
> -		return error("char" PD_FMT ": could not verify tag name", tag_line - data);
> +	{
> +		unsigned long i;

Do you realize that half of your diff consists of reindenting, just 
because you introduced this ugly construct, instead of being a good boy 
and put the declarations where they belong -- at the beginning of the 
function (or if it exists, block)?

> +		/* Verify the tag-name: we don't allow control characters or spaces in it */
> +		for (i = 4;;) {

Yes, you can write this construct. That does not change the fact that it 
gives me eye cancer.

Ciao,
Dscho

-
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]

  Powered by Linux