On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > On 2008.07.25 07:54:49 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > > > The function does not seem to use type (which the patch is also setting) > > > > nor real_type (which the patch does not set). > > > > > > > > However, the code checks objects[nth].real_type all over the place in > > > > the code. Doesn't the lack of real_type assignment in > > > > append_obj_to_pack() affect them in any way? > > > > > > >From staring at the code, I thought that real_type was set in > > > resolve_delta(), but I may be wrong. > > > > > > The safer thing would be to set it, but I am not quite sure if we can use > > > "type" directly, or if type can be "delta" for an object that is used to > > > complete the pack, and therefore stored as a non-delta. > > > > Objects to complete the pack are always non delta, so the type and > > real_type should be the same. However that shouldn't matter since at > > that point the object array is not walked anymore, at least not for > > appended objects, and therefore initializing the type at that point is > > redundant. > > Is that still true when the object has been pruned due to memory > constraints set by deltaBaseCacheLimit? AFAICT when reloading the data > for the object, we end up in get_base_data, which at least checks > obj->type. yeah, true. I don't really have this new code path in my head yet. In any case, appended objects should have type = real_type = non delta type. Nicolas
