Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In preceding commits the codepaths around update_submodules() were
> changed from using exit() or die() to ferrying up a
> "must_die_on_failure" in the cases where we'd exit(), and in most
> cases where we'd die().
>
> We needed to do this this to ensure that we'd early exit or otherwise
> abort the update_submodules() processing before it was completed.
>
> Now that those preceding changes have shown that we've converted those
> paths, we can remove the remaining "ret == 128" special-cases, leaving
> the only such special-case in update_submodules(). I.e. we now know
> after having gone through the various codepaths that we were only
> returning 128 if we meant to early abort.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> builtin/submodule--helper.c | 33 +++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> index 2b78fa7573f..79a11992d1c 100644
> --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> @@ -2147,8 +2147,7 @@ static int fetch_in_submodule(const char *module_path, int depth, int quiet, str
> return run_command(&cp);
> }
>
> -static int run_update_command(struct update_data *ud, int subforce,
> - int *must_die_on_failure)
> +static int run_update_command(struct update_data *ud, int subforce)
> {
> struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> char *oid = oid_to_hex(&ud->oid);
> @@ -2211,8 +2210,6 @@ static int run_update_command(struct update_data *ud, int subforce,
> ud->update_strategy.type);
> }
>
> - if (ret == 128)
> - *must_die_on_failure = 1;
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -2244,8 +2241,7 @@ static int run_update_command(struct update_data *ud, int subforce,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int run_update_procedure(struct update_data *ud,
> - int *must_die_on_failure)
> +static int run_update_procedure(struct update_data *ud)
> {
> int subforce = is_null_oid(&ud->suboid) || ud->force;
>
> @@ -2272,7 +2268,7 @@ static int run_update_procedure(struct update_data *ud,
> ud->displaypath, oid_to_hex(&ud->oid));
> }
>
> - return run_update_command(ud, subforce, must_die_on_failure);
> + return run_update_command(ud, subforce);
> }
>
> static const char *remote_submodule_branch(const char *path)
> @@ -2408,8 +2404,7 @@ static void update_data_to_args(struct update_data *update_data, struct strvec *
> "--no-single-branch");
> }
>
> -static int update_submodule(struct update_data *update_data,
> - int *must_die_on_failure)
> +static int update_submodule(struct update_data *update_data)
> {
> int ret;
>
> @@ -2454,11 +2449,9 @@ static int update_submodule(struct update_data *update_data,
> }
>
> if (!oideq(&update_data->oid, &update_data->suboid) || update_data->force) {
> - ret = run_update_procedure(update_data, must_die_on_failure);
> - if (*must_die_on_failure)
> - return ret;
> + ret = run_update_procedure(update_data);
> if (ret)
> - return 1;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> if (update_data->recursive) {
> @@ -2476,12 +2469,9 @@ static int update_submodule(struct update_data *update_data,
>
> /* die() if child process die()'d */
> ret = run_command(&cp);
> - if (!ret)
> - return 0;
> - die_message(_("Failed to recurse into submodule path '%s'"),
> - update_data->displaypath);
> - if (ret == 128)
> - *must_die_on_failure = 1;
> + if (ret)
> + die_message(_("Failed to recurse into submodule path '%s'"),
> + update_data->displaypath);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -2514,17 +2504,16 @@ static int update_submodules(struct update_data *update_data)
>
> for (i = 0; i < suc.update_clone_nr; i++) {
> struct update_clone_data ucd = suc.update_clone[i];
> - int must_die_on_failure = 0;
> int code;
>
> oidcpy(&update_data->oid, &ucd.oid);
> update_data->just_cloned = ucd.just_cloned;
> update_data->sm_path = ucd.sub->path;
>
> - code = update_submodule(update_data, &must_die_on_failure);
> + code = update_submodule(update_data);
> if (code)
> ret = code;
> - if (must_die_on_failure)
> + if (code == 128)
> goto cleanup;
> else if (code)
> ret = 1;
This hunk makes sense in the context of this patch, but
if (code)
ret = code;
if (code == 128)
goto cleanup;
else if (code)
ret = 1;
reads a bit awkwardly. Maybe we could drop "code" altogether and just
have:
if (ret == 128)
goto cleanup;
else if (ret)
ret = 1;
But I don't feel strongly either way.
> --
> 2.37.1.1233.ge8b09efaedc
