Re: static-check hits

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 02:59:15PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> Hi Taylor,
>
> Just a quick note about new hits from my 'static-check.pl' script
> caused by the 'tb/cruft-packs' branch. This script notes any symbols
> that are not referenced outside the defining compilation unit.
> (So they could be declared static in that compilation unit).
> Comparing the current 'next' and 'seen' branches:
>
>   $ diff nsc ssc
>   ...
>   62a63,64
>   > pack-mtimes.o	- pack_has_mtimes
>   > packfile.o	- close_pack_mtimes
>   ...
>   $
>
> This is not necessarily a problem, of course, if you have patches/plans
> to add callers in the future (or that they simply 'round out' an API).
> I haven't looked (so can't comment), beyond:

Thanks very much for pointing both of these out. Removing
pack_has_mtimes() entirely is fine with me. I was surprised that it was
unused, since I thought the code setting `is_cruft = 1` in
`add_packed_git()` would have been a potential caller, but that spot
just constructs the path itself and checks the result access()-ing it.

Similarly on close_pack_mtimes(): that was definitely intended to round
out the API (along with close_pack_revindex()), but isn't necessary
outside of packfile.c's compilation unit. We could probably apply the
same treatment to close_pack_revindex(), but I'll pursue that as a
separate matter.

> Also, the function definition of 'close_pack_mtimes()' has the opening
> { of the body on the function header line, rather than by itself on
> the following line.

Copied over from close_pack_revindex(), but fixed. Thanks!

Thanks,
Taylor