On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:39 PM Matheus Tavares
<matheus.bernard...@usp.br> wrote:
>
> Extract dir creation code snippet from copy_or_link_directory to its own
> function named mkdir_if_missing. This change will help removing
> copy_or_link_directory's explicit recursion, which will be done in patch
> "clone: use dir-iterator to avoid explicit dir traversal".
"which will be done in a following patch" is enough and perhaps even
better as the following patch can then be changed independently of
this one.
> Also makes
> code more readable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernard...@usp.br>
[...]
> +static void mkdir_if_missing(const char *pathname, mode_t mode)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Create a dir at pathname unless there's already one.
> + */
> + struct stat buf;
I know that the variable was already called "buf" in
copy_or_link_directory() and that there are a few other places in the
code where a 'struct stat' is called "buf", but in most places the
'struct stat' variables are called "st":
$ git grep 'struct stat ' '*.c' | perl -ne 'print "$1\n" if (m/struct
stat ([\w_]+)/);' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
129 st
6 sb
3 buf
2 statbuf
1 st_stdin
1 st_git
1 statbuffer
1 st2
1 st1
1 nst
1 loginfo
1 cwd_stat
1 argstat
So I wonder if we should use "st" here instead of "buf". We also often
use "buf" for 'struct strbuf' variables which can be confusing.
Otherwise the patch looks good to me.
