On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:57 PM Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > > Christian Couder <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04 PM Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Matheus Tavares <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> > @@ -598,7 +599,8 @@ static int grep_tree(struct grep_opt *opt, const > >> > struct pathspec *pathspec, > >> > free(data); > >> > } else if (recurse_submodules && S_ISGITLINK(entry.mode)) { > >> > hit |= grep_submodule(opt, pathspec, &entry.oid, > >> > - base->buf, base->buf + > >> > tn_len); > >> > + base->buf, base->buf + > >> > tn_len, > >> > + 1); /* ignored */ > >> > >> The trailing comment is misleading. In the context of reviewing > >> this patch, we can probably tell it applies only to that "1", but > >> if you read only the postimage, the "ignored" comment looks as if > >> the call itself is somehow ignored by somebody unspecified. It is > >> not clear at all that it is only about the final parameter. > >> > >> If you must... > >> > >> hit |= grep_submodule(opt, pathspec, &entry.oid, > >> base->buf, base->buf + tn_len, > >> 1 /* ignored */); > > > > Yeah, I suggested adding an "/* ignored */" comment, but I was indeed > > thinking about something like this. > > > >> ... is a reasonable way to write it. > > Thanks. In this case, I am not sure if the comment here really > helps. If anything, shouldn't there be a comment near the top of > grep_submodule() that says 'cached bit is meaningful only when you > feed an empty oid, aka "not grepping inside a tree object"'?
Right, it makes sense. I'll add that.
