On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:15 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > write_eolinfo() does take an istate as function argument and it should > be used instead of the_index. > > Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > builtin/ls-files.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/ls-files.c b/builtin/ls-files.c > index 7233b92794..7f9919a362 100644 > --- a/builtin/ls-files.c > +++ b/builtin/ls-files.c > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static void write_eolinfo(const struct index_state *istate, > struct stat st; > const char *i_txt = ""; > const char *w_txt = ""; > - const char *a_txt = get_convert_attr_ascii(&the_index, path); > + const char *a_txt = get_convert_attr_ascii(istate, path); Going by the commit message this patch should end here? > -static void show_dir_entry(const char *tag, struct dir_entry *ent) > +static void show_dir_entry(const struct index_state *istate, > + const char *tag, struct dir_entry *ent) [...] > - if (!dir_path_match(&the_index, ent, &pathspec, len, ps_matched)) > + if (!dir_path_match(istate, ent, &pathspec, len, ps_matched)) [...] > - write_eolinfo(NULL, NULL, ent->name); > + write_eolinfo(istate, NULL, ent->name); but here we need to pass through the istate, which is why we adjust the dir_path_match while we're here > - show_dir_entry(tag_other, ent); > + show_dir_entry(istate, tag_other, ent); [...] > - show_dir_entry(tag_killed, dir->entries[i]); > + show_dir_entry(istate, tag_killed, dir->entries[i]); and having to adjust more callers here > @@ -228,7 +229,7 @@ static void show_ce(struct repository *repo, struct dir_struct *dir, > - } else if (match_pathspec(&the_index, &pathspec, fullname, strlen(fullname), > + } else if (match_pathspec(repo->index, &pathspec, fullname, strlen(fullname), > @@ -264,7 +265,7 @@ static void show_ru_info(const struct index_state *istate) > - if (!match_pathspec(&the_index, &pathspec, path, len, > + if (!match_pathspec(istate, &pathspec, path, len, These seem more or less unrelated to the commit message or the code changes above. Maybe mention these as a "while at it" or separate them out in their own commit? thanks, Stefan
