On Tue, Dec 24 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Hans Jerry Illikainen <hji@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> + /* Do we have trust level? */
>> + if (sigcheck_gpg_status[i].flags & GPG_STATUS_TRUST_LEVEL) {
>> + /*
>> + * GPG v1 and v2 differs in how the
>> + * TRUST_ lines are written. Some
>> + * trust lines contain no additional
>> + * space-separated information for v1.
>> + */
>> + next = strchr(line, ' ');
>> + if (!next)
>> + next = strchrnul(line, '\n');
>> + trust = xmemdupz(line, next - line);
>
> I wonder if telling strcspn() to stop at either SP or LF is more in
> line with the existing codebase [*1*] and/or more readable. It
> would make this part to:
>
> size_t trust_size = strcspn(line, " \n");
> trust = xmemdupz(line, trust_size);
>
> without the need to use or update the 'next' variable, if I am not
> mistaken?
I agree; fixed in v3.
> By the way, while we are looking at this patch, I notice that,
> throughout the function, the use of variable 'next' feels rather
> misleading, at least to me.
>
> [...]
>
> I wonder if the code becomes less misleading if we either (1)
> renamed 'next' to a name that hints more strongly that it is not the
> 'next' line but the end of the current token we are interested in,
> or (2) get rid of the pointer and instead counted size of the
> current token we are interested in, or perhaps both?
Yeah the name 'next' does seem a bit counter-intuitive when used in
relation to 'line'. Looking through the function it seems that both (1)
and (2) would work.
> This is not the fault of this patch, but I just mention it before I
> forget.
>
> Thanks.
Thanks for the review!
--
hji
