shejialuo <shejialuo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +static int files_fsck_refs_content(struct fsck_options *o,
> + const char *gitdir,
> + const char *refs_check_dir,
> + struct dir_iterator *iter)
> +{
> + ...
> + if (parse_loose_ref_contents(ref_content.buf, &oid,
> + &referent, &type,
> + &failure_errno, &trailing)) {
The function parse_loose_ref_contents() needs to know what the hash
algorithm is, and it used to implicitly assume that the_repository's
hash algorithm was an OK thing to use. Patrick's recent clean-up
series instead passes "struct ref_store *refs" throughout the call
chain so that "ref->repo->hash_algo" can be used. This needs some
matching change, which means ...
> files_fsck_refs_fn fsck_refs_fns[]= {
> files_fsck_refs_name,
> + files_fsck_refs_content,
> NULL
> };
... the function signature for files_fsck_refs_fn must change to
have something that lets you access repo->hash_algo.
By the way, unless the most common use of an array is to pass it
around as a collection of items and operate on the collection, it is
a better practice to name an array with a singular noun. Name the
array as fsck_refs_fn[] not _fns[]. This is so that you can refer
to a single element in a more grammatical way. E.g. with
struct dog dog[] = { { .breed="shiba" }, { .breed="beagle" } };
you can say "dog[0] has brown fur" instead of "dogs[0] has ...".
In this case, you do not treat the collection of functions as a one
thing and do something to the collection. Instead you'd repeat over
the functions in a loop and individually call them, perhaps like so:
for (i = 0; fsck_fn[i] != NULL; i++)
fsck_fn[i](...);
so it is very much more appropriate to name the array itself as
singular to allow you to say "first fsck_fn", "next fsck_fn", etc.
