Skip to content

G
git

李少辉-开发者 / git
与 Fork 源项目一致

从无法访问的项目Fork

通知 2
Star 1
Fork 0
G
git

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 18 2月, 2015 1 次提交
  3. 13 2月, 2015 2 次提交
  5. 14 1月, 2015 1 次提交
  7. 30 12月, 2014 1 次提交
  9. 23 12月, 2014 5 次提交
  11. 13 12月, 2014 1 次提交
  13. 11 12月, 2014 3 次提交
    • J
      read_packed_refs: use skip_prefix instead of static array · ea417833
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      We want to recognize the packed-refs header and skip to the
"traits" part of the line. We currently do it by feeding
sizeof() a static const array to strncmp. However, it's a
bit simpler to just skip_prefix, which expresses the
intention more directly, and without remembering to account
for the NUL-terminator in each sizeof() call.
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      ea417833
    • J
      read_packed_refs: pass strbuf to parse_ref_line · 6a49870a
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      Now that we have a strbuf in read_packed_refs, we can pass
it straight to the line parser, which saves us an extra
strlen.
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      6a49870a
    • J
      read_packed_refs: use a strbuf for reading lines · 10c497aa
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      Current code uses a fixed PATH_MAX-sized buffer for reading
packed-refs lines. This is a reasonable guess, in the sense
that git generally cannot work with refs larger than
PATH_MAX.  However, there are a few cases where it is not
great:

  1. Some systems may have a low value of PATH_MAX, but can
     actually handle larger paths in practice. Fixing this
     code path probably isn't enough to make them work
     completely with long refs, but it is a step in the
     right direction.

  2. We use fgets, which will happily give us half a line on
     the first read, and then the rest of the line on the
     second. This is probably OK in practice, because our
     refline parser is careful enough to look for the
     trailing newline on the first line. The second line may
     look like a peeled line to us, but since "^" is illegal
     in refnames, it is not likely to come up.

     Still, it does not hurt to be more careful.
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      10c497aa
  15. 06 12月, 2014 2 次提交
    • J
      for_each_reflog_ent_reverse: turn leftover check into assertion · 69216bf7
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      Our loop should always process all lines, even if we hit the
beginning of the file. We have a conditional after the loop
ends to double-check that there is nothing left and to
process it. But this should never happen, and is a sign of a
logic bug in the loop. Let's turn it into a BUG assertion.
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      69216bf7
    • J
      for_each_reflog_ent_reverse: fix newlines on block boundaries · e5e73ff2
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      When we read a reflog file in reverse, we read whole chunks
of BUFSIZ bytes, then loop over the buffer, parsing any
lines we find. We find the beginning of each line by looking
for the newline from the previous line. If we don't find
one, we know that we are either at the beginning of
the file, or that we have to read another block.

In the latter case, we stuff away what we have into a
strbuf, read another block, and continue our parse. But we
missed one case here. If we did find a newline, and it is at
the beginning of the block, we must also stuff that newline
into the strbuf, as it belongs to the block we are about to
read.

The minimal fix here would be to add this special case to
the conditional that checks whether we found a newline.
But we can make the flow a little clearer by rearranging a
bit: we first handle lines that we are going to show, and
then at the end of each loop, stuff away any leftovers if
necessary. That lets us fold this special-case in with the
more common "we ended in the middle of a line" case.
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      e5e73ff2
  17. 05 12月, 2014 2 次提交
  19. 26 11月, 2014 1 次提交
  21. 21 11月, 2014 1 次提交
    • R
      lock_ref_sha1_basic: do not die on locking errors · 06839515
      由 Ronnie Sahlberg 提交于 
      lock_ref_sha1_basic is inconsistent about when it calls
die() and when it returns NULL to signal an error. This is
annoying to any callers that want to recover from a locking
error.

This seems to be mostly historical accident. It was added in
4bd18c43 (Improve abstraction of ref lock/write.,
2006-05-17), which returned an error in all cases except
calling safe_create_leading_directories, in which case it
died.  Later, 40aaae88 (Better error message when we are
unable to lock the index file, 2006-08-12) asked
hold_lock_file_for_update to die for us, leaving the
resolve_ref code-path the only one which returned NULL.

We tried to correct that in 5cc3cef9 (lock_ref_sha1(): do not
sometimes error() and sometimes die()., 2006-09-30),
by converting all of the die() calls into returns. But we
missed the "die" flag passed to the lock code, leaving us
inconsistent. This state persisted until e5c223e9
(lock_ref_sha1_basic(): if locking fails with ENOENT, retry,
2014-01-18). Because of its retry scheme, it does not ask
the lock code to die, but instead manually dies with
unable_to_lock_die().

We can make this consistent with the other return paths by
converting this to use unable_to_lock_message(), and
returning NULL. This is safe to do because all callers
already needed to check the return value of the function,
since it could fail (and return NULL) for other reasons.

[jk: Added excessive history explanation]
Signed-off-by: NRonnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Reviewed-by: NJonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      06839515
  23. 05 11月, 2014 1 次提交
    • J
      ignore stale directories when checking reflog existence · 9233887c
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      When we update a ref, we have two rules for whether or not
we actually update the reflog:

  1. If the reflog already exists, we will always append to
     it.

  2. If log_all_ref_updates is set, we will create a new
     reflog file if necessary.

We do the existence check by trying to open the reflog file,
either with or without O_CREAT (depending on log_all_ref_updates).
If it fails, then we check errno to see what happened.

If we were not using O_CREAT and we got ENOENT, the file
doesn't exist, and we return success (there isn't a reflog
already, and we were not told to make a new one).

If we get EISDIR, then there is likely a stale directory
that needs to be removed (e.g., there used to be "foo/bar",
it was deleted, and the directory "foo" was left. Now we
want to create the ref "foo"). If O_CREAT is set, then we
catch this case, try to remove the directory, and retry our
open. So far so good.

But if we get EISDIR and O_CREAT is not set, then we treat
this as any other error, which is not right. Like ENOENT,
EISDIR is an indication that we do not have a reflog, and we
should silently return success (we were not told to create
it). Instead, the current code reports this as an error, and
we fail to update the ref at all.

Note that this is relatively unlikely to happen, as you
would have to have had reflogs turned on, and then later
turned them off (it could also happen due to a bug in fetch,
but that was fixed in the previous commit). However, it's
quite easy to fix: we just need to treat EISDIR like ENOENT
for the non-O_CREAT case, and silently return (note that
this early return means we can also simplify the O_CREAT
case).

Our new tests cover both cases (O_CREAT and non-O_CREAT).
The first one already worked, of course.
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      9233887c
  25. 16 10月, 2014 16 次提交
  27. 02 10月, 2014 3 次提交