On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 03:41:28AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > +int offset_to_pack_pos(struct packed_git *p, off_t ofs, uint32_t *pos)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (load_pack_revindex(p) < 0)
> > + return -1;
>
> This one lazy-loads the revindex for us, which seems handy...
>
> > +uint32_t pack_pos_to_index(struct packed_git *p, uint32_t pos)
> > +{
> > + if (!p->revindex)
> > + BUG("pack_pos_to_index: reverse index not yet loaded");
> > + if (pos >= p->num_objects)
> > + BUG("pack_pos_to_index: out-of-bounds object at %"PRIu32, pos);
> > + return p->revindex[pos].nr;
> > +}
>
> But these ones don't. I'm glad we at least catch it with a BUG(), but it
> makes the API a little funny. Returning an error here would require a
> similarly awkward out-parameter, I guess.
Having now looked at the callers through the series, I think adding an
error return to pack_pos_to_index() would be really awkward (since it
cannot currently fail).
We _could_ insist that callers of offset_to_pack_pos() also make sure
the revindex is loaded themselves. But it would be annoying and
error-prone to check the existing callers. So I'm OK with leaving this
asymmetry in the API.
-Peff
