On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:43:23AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > @@ -1813,11 +1813,11 @@ static void check_object(struct object_entry *entry, uint32_t object_index)
> > goto give_up;
> > }
> > if (reuse_delta && !entry->preferred_base) {
> > - struct revindex_entry *revidx;
> > - revidx = find_pack_revindex(p, ofs);
> > - if (!revidx)
> > + uint32_t pos;
> > + if (offset_to_pack_pos(p, ofs, &pos) < 0)
>
> The current implementation does not return a positive value. Only
> -1 on error and 0 on success. Is this "< 0" doing anything important?
> Seems like it would be easiest to do
>
> if (offset_to_pack_pos(p, ofs, &pos))
>
> [snip]
Either would work, of course. I tend to find the '< 0' form easier to
read, but I may be in the minority there. For me, the negative return
value makes clear that the function encountered an error.
A secondary benefit is that if the function ever were to return a
positive value that _didn't_ indicate an error, we would already be
protected against it. That is probably a pretty weak argument, though,
since any such refactoring would probably require the callers to change,
too.
Anyway, that's all to say that I'm happy to leave it as-is, but I'm
equally happy to change it, too.
Thanks,
Taylor
