kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Tree: 986d7f4d37

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jonathan Nieder	c74c72034f	test: replace shebangs with descriptions in shell libraries A #! line in these files is misleading, since these scriptlets are meant to be sourced with '.' (using whatever shell sources them) instead of run directly using the interpreter named on the #! line. Removing the #! line shouldn't hurt syntax highlighting since these files have filenames ending with '.sh'. For documentation, add a brief description of how the files are meant to be used in place of the shebang line. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	11 years ago
Kacper Kornet	fbc812a600	Fix '\%o' for printf from coreutils The printf utility provided by coreutils when interpreting '\%o' format does not recognize %o as formatting directive. For example printf '\%o 0 returns \%o and warning: ignoring excess arguments, starting with ‘0’, which results in failed tests in t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh. In most shells the test ends with success as the printf is a builtin utility. Fix it by using '\\%o' which is interpreted consistently in all versions of printf. Signed-off-by: Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	11 years ago
Jeff King	3b910d0c5e	add tests for indexing packs with delta cycles If we receive a broken or malicious pack from a remote, we will feed it to index-pack. As index-pack processes the objects as a stream, reconstructing and hashing each object to get its name, it is not very susceptible to doing the wrong with bad data (it simply notices that the data is bogus and aborts). However, one question raised on the list is whether it could be susceptible to problems during the delta-resolution phase. In particular, can a cycle in the packfile deltas cause us to go into an infinite loop or cause any other problem? The answer is no. We cannot have a cycle of delta-base offsets, because they go only in one direction (the OFS_DELTA object mentions its base by an offset towards the beginning of the file, and we explicitly reject negative offsets). We can have a cycle of REF_DELTA objects, which refer to base objects by sha1 name. However, index-pack does not know these sha1 names ahead of time; it has to reconstruct the objects to get their names, and it cannot do so if there is a delta cycle (in other words, it does not even realize there is a cycle, but only that there are items that cannot be resolved). Even though we can reason out that index-pack should handle this fine, let's add a few tests to make sure it behaves correctly. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	12 years ago
Jeff King	171bdaca69	sha1-lookup: handle duplicate keys with GIT_USE_LOOKUP The sha1_entry_pos function tries to be smart about selecting the middle of a range for its binary search by looking at the value differences between the "lo" and "hi" constraints. However, it is unable to cope with entries with duplicate keys in the sorted list. We may hit a point in the search where both our "lo" and "hi" point to the same key. In this case, the range of values between our endpoints is 0, and trying to scale the difference between our key and the endpoints over that range is undefined (i.e., divide by zero). The current code catches this with an "assert(lov < hiv)". Moreover, after seeing that the first 20 byte of the key are the same, we will try to establish a value from the 21st byte. Which is nonsensical. Instead, we can detect the case that we are in a run of duplicates, and simply do a final comparison against any one of them (since they are all the same, it does not matter which). If the keys match, we have found our entry (or one of them, anyway). If not, then we know that we do not need to look further, as we must be in a run of the duplicate key. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	12 years ago