Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 2:31 PM Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > diff --git a/dir.h b/dir.h
> > > index 33fd848fc8d..2196e12630c 100644
> > > --- a/dir.h
> > > +++ b/dir.h
> > > @@ -295,8 +295,12 @@ struct dir_struct {
> > > struct untracked_cache *untracked;
> > >
> > > /**
> > > - * The name of the file to be read in each directory for excluded files
> > > - * (typically `.gitignore`).
> > > + * Deprecated: ls-files is the only allowed caller; all other callers
> > > + * should leave this as NULL; it pre-dated the
> > > + * setup_standard_excludes() mechanism that replaces this.
> > > + *
> > > + * This field tracks the name of the file to be read in each directory
> > > + * for excluded files (typically `.gitignore`).
> > > */
> > > const char *exclude_per_dir;
> >
> > I'm not sure what is meant by "allowed caller", but I wouldn't have
> > expected this to also mean that unpack-trees would need to know to
> > propagate this from o->internal.dir to d in verify_clean_subdirectory.
>
> Are you confusing fields that are internal to dir, with fields that
> are internal to unpack-trees?
>
> This series does not make exclude_per_dir an internal field within dir_struct.
Agreed, but the comment says that ls-files is the only allowed caller,
and I would have expected that non-"allowed callers" would not need to
write to exclude_per_dir. But in unpack-trees.c:
2346 if (o->internal.dir)
2347 d.exclude_per_dir = o->internal.dir->exclude_per_dir;
Both "d" and "o->internal.dir" are of type "struct dir_struct" (well,
one is not a pointer and one is). I would not have expected such non-
ls-files code to read or write from this field. (But if unpack-trees
is considered part of ls-files and/or copying the same field to another
struct is not considered "calling", then this patch is fine, I guess.)
