On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 9:44 PM Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > @@ -99,6 +94,15 @@ static int promisor_remote_config(const char *var, const char *value, void *data
> > > size_t namelen;
> > > const char *subkey;
> > >
> > > + if (!strcmp(var, "extensions.partialclone")) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * NULL value is handled in handle_extension_v0 in setup.c.
> > > + */
> > > + if (value)
> > > + repository_format_partial_clone = xstrdup(value);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> >
> > This is actually slightly hard to parse out. I was trying to figure
> > out where repository_format_partial_clone was initialized, and it's
> > not handled when value is NULL in handle_extension_v0; it's the fact
> > that repository_format_partial_clone is declared a static global
> > variable.
> >
> > But in the next patch you make it a member of struct
> > promisor_remote_config, and instead rely on the xcalloc call in
> > promisor_remote_init().
> >
> > That means everything is properly initialized and you haven't made any
> > mistakes here, but the logic is a bit hard to follow. Perhaps it'd be
> > nicer to just write this as
> >
> > + if (!strcmp(var, "extensions.partialclone")) {
> > + repository_format_partial_clone = xstrdup_or_null(value);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> >
> > which makes the code shorter and easier to follow, at least for me.
>
> Hmm...is your concern about the case in which
> repository_format_partial_clone is uninitialized, or about ignoring a
> potential NULL value? If the former, I don't see how your suggestion
> fixes things, since extensions.partialclone may never have been in the
> config in the first place (and would thus leave
> repository_format_partial_clone uninitialized, if it weren't for the
> fact that it is in static storage and thus initialized to 0). If the
> latter, I guess I should be more detailed about how it's being handled
> in setup.c (or maybe just leave out the comment altogether - the code
> here can handle a NULL repository_format_partial_clone for some reason).
My comment was about the latter; I was trying to understand what the
comment meant relative to that case, and how and where that case would
be handled in the code. With that frame of reference, the comment
seemed misleading to me...though perhaps the comment was intended to
answer some other question entirely.
