From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Hommey Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] connect: call get_host_and_port() earlier Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 07:28:31 +0900 Message-ID: <20160520222831.GA7752@glandium.org> References: <20160517013554.22578-1-mh@glandium.org> <20160517013554.22578-2-mh@glandium.org> <20160520221430.GA28273@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, tboegi@web.de To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 21 00:28:45 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b3suQ-00057S-Of for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 21 May 2016 00:28:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751065AbcETW2j (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2016 18:28:39 -0400 Received: from ns332406.ip-37-187-123.eu ([37.187.123.207]:56782 "EHLO glandium.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750782AbcETW2i (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2016 18:28:38 -0400 Received: from glandium by zenigata with local (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1b3suF-00022Y-33; Sat, 21 May 2016 07:28:31 +0900 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Fingerprint: 182E 161D 1130 B9FC CD7D B167 E42A A04F A6AA 8C72 User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:20:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mike Hommey writes: > > >> Can never happen because? > >> > >> !*port means get_host_and_port() made the "port" pointer point at > >> a NUL byte. That does not happen because the only case port is > >> moved by that function is to have it point at a byte after we > >> found ':', and the "port" string is a decimal integer whose value > >> is between 0 and 65535, so there is no way port points at an empty > >> string. > >> > >> OK. > > > > Do you want me to add this to the commit message in a possible v7? > > No. > > I was merely thinking aloud to see if "in a case that never can > happen" is sufficient decsription. I think it is ;-) > > >> This looks strange.... > > v3 of this series did remove this get_port(), and broke the > > '[host:port]:path' syntax as a consequence. The reason this happens is > > that get_host_and_port, in that case, is called with [host:port], sees > > the square brackets, and searches the port *after* the closing bracket, > > because the usual case where square brackets appear is ipv6 addresses, > > which contain colons, and the brackets in that case are used to separate > > the host and the port. > > > > In that case, get_host_and_port returns "host:port" and null. > > Doesn't that indicate that this codepath deserves some in-code > comment? What would be the usual way you'd do this? separate patch? or just doing it in one of the patches that touches the surrounding code? Mike