On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 11:21:36AM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:51:38 -0400 > Derrick Stolee <dsto...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > Most code paths load commits using lookup_commit() and then > > parse_commit(). In some cases, including some branch lookups, the commit > > is parsed using parse_object_buffer() which side-steps parse_commit() in > > favor of parse_commit_buffer(). > > > > Before adding generation numbers to the commit-graph, we need to ensure > > that any commit that exists in the graph is loaded from the graph, so > > check parse_commit_in_graph() before calling parse_commit_buffer(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dsto...@microsoft.com> > > Modifying parse_object_buffer() is the most pragmatic way to accomplish > this, but this also means that parse_object_buffer() now potentially > reads from the local object store (instead of only relying on what's in > memory and what's in the provided buffer). parse_object_buffer() is > called by several callers including in builtin/fsck.c. I would feel more > comfortable if the relevant [1] caller to parse_object_buffer() was > modified instead of parse_object_buffer(), but I'll let others give > their opinions too.
It's not just you. This seems like a really odd place to put it. Especially because if we have the buffer to pass to this function, then we'd already have incurred the cost to inflate the object. -Peff
