> On 27 Sep 2016, at 17:37, Jakub Narębski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Part second of the review of 11/11.
>
> W dniu 20.09.2016 o 21:02, [email protected] pisze:
>
>> +
>> + if (!drv->process && (CAP_CLEAN & wanted_capability) && drv->clean)
>
> This is just a very minor nitpicking, but wouldn't it be easier
> to read with those checks reordered?
>
> + if ((wanted_capability & CAP_CLEAN) && !drv->process && drv->clean)
OK
>> +
>> + if (start_command(process)) {
>> + error("cannot fork to run external filter '%s'", cmd);
>> + kill_multi_file_filter(hashmap, entry);
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>
> I guess there is a reason why we init hashmap entry, try to start
> external process, then kill entry of unable to start, instead of
> trying to start external process, and adding hashmap entry when
> we succeed?
Yes. This way I can reuse the kill_multi_file_filter() function.
>> +
>> + sigchain_push(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
>
> I guess that this is here to handle errors writing to filter
> by ourself, isn't it?
Yes.
>> + error("external filter '%s' does not support long running
>> filter protocol", cmd);
>
> We could have described the error here better.
>
> + error("external filter '%s' does not support filter protocol
> version 2", cmd);
OK
>> +static void read_multi_file_filter_values(int fd, struct strbuf *status) {
>
> This is more
>
> +static void read_multi_file_filter_status(int fd, struct strbuf *status) {
>
> It doesn't read arbitrary values, it examines 'metadata' from
> filter for "status=<foo>" lines.
True!
>> + if (pair[0] && pair[0]->len && pair[1]) {
>> + if (!strcmp(pair[0]->buf, "status=")) {
>> + strbuf_reset(status);
>> + strbuf_addbuf(status, pair[1]);
>> + }
>
> So it is last status=<foo> line wins behavior?
Correct.
>
>> + }
>
> Shouldn't we free 'struct strbuf **pair', maybe allocated by the
> strbuf_split_str() function, and reset to NULL?
True. strbuf_list_free() should be enough.
>>
>> + fflush(NULL);
>
> Why this fflush(NULL) is needed here?
This flushes all open output streams. The single filter does the same.
>>
>> + if (fd >= 0 && !src) {
>> + if (fstat(fd, &file_stat) == -1)
>> + return 0;
>> + len = xsize_t(file_stat.st_size);
>> + }
>
> Errr... is it necessary? The protocol no longer provides size=<n>
> hint, and neither uses such hint if provided.
We require the size in write_packetized_from_buf() later.
>> +
>> + err = strlen(filter_type) > PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN;
>> + if (err)
>> + goto done;
>
> Errr... this should never happen. We control which capabilities
> we pass, it can be only "clean" or "smudge", nothing else. Those
> would always be shorter than PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN.
>
> Never mind that that is "command=smudge\n" etc. that needs to
> be shorter that PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN!
>
> So, IMHO it should be at most assert, and needs to be corrected
> anyway.
OK!
> This should never happen, PATH_MAX everywhere is much shorter
> than PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN / LARGE_PACKET_MAX. Or is it?
>
> Anyway, we should probably explain or warn
>
> error("path name too long: '%s'", path);
OK
>> + /*
>> + * Something went wrong with the protocol filter.
>> + * Force shutdown and restart if another blob requires
>> filtering!
>
> Is this exclamation mark '!' here necessary?
>
No.
Thanks,
Lars
