From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9A91F403 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:32:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935428AbeFMScb (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:32:31 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:50246 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935400AbeFMScb (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:32:31 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id e16-v6so6386961wmd.0 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:32:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=ZrpC3rF0zU1c3RT965TBlpA1DPETmTGMmqjfdAeZhuw=; b=P+LAxDth8WtTlVS9yy4QD86paV3ItoHGcBiyiWPxOTmEKT7ZIjgNYm5PsOuZbKczQR SeNVKy8evVJu6AUTL4cQiXSb+ThhJ5V4KPgoQJKGgqL9E7+7TU2jOouwbAsPa6E9GhIK aY7XI8JMi5QiZENxkyMuM/jOqXkzwmpe1mA3HoS2OHSB9h/iUDLv9oq92cawiOH/mqrE MKcUNFC5EhcGrilFvkrylgB8GemtV4PppsoeezQ37dE1V/gOLz7CwqxDo/96VTvQ0H2m jAK8nRBMKlSHexGLEE+JFvXUc2TFl3C3ObA+QB1cq1KAiBm4X+eoqwVceJHiIwZqCcJd BWZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=ZrpC3rF0zU1c3RT965TBlpA1DPETmTGMmqjfdAeZhuw=; b=RJ7IWUAwzMaYdBiqAW96TQm2O89FbAEHuzTJ+Dr9Qlcq6Ww8LooO4Lx2QW9YS7LaJ/ +x4uZHjBGu27u6ml92UgtvGsZHdCqvCJjwt39aKEdYoY8O7cCJiNeQqwrMpL8iYSvwqd B/IZAXy+/Wmkwmq4Xd5bZPBWs/WL862IKWrJ8BeJa4+vgUvTd7iVsHoYcEgWPYVpgder wKM2bgjQb1CbSy5ESVAq/HY7jIDyznQthyhdRG1gRGQzzkSdmU5oQ1ikr9PtDMNct9oX b83EaFG75ts+5IeXvlg/4ipimm7j8mbYlTZBY4l5WUq9kxMkrMNhdlBdiEkZQT2XHmVL NKyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1n/UzQ5PDsgVpMHCZacrVt+P0wAjeKwLWWcPn+1wx1q0B4ysTR CDUFxM8Xv9uxFGYyCv12xtCW8EUH X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJFLdcRlf9XFVuCSFbCzP5aIBCr6svUtEzjiY+ydrUMFjQO98hmAVBFrn29cFzhlWhqKRG0NA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:ae94:: with SMTP id x142-v6mr4076226wme.22.1528914749824; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (112.68.155.104.bc.googleusercontent.com. [104.155.68.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a8-v6sm4840443wrc.18.2018.06.13.11.32.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:32:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Jeremy Linton , Git List , Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] packfile: Correct zlib buffer handling References: <20180613142207.14385-1-lintonrjeremy@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:32:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:21:03 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Sunshine writes: > A couple comments if you happen to re-roll... > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:22 AM Jeremy Linton wrote: >> The buffer being passed to zlib includes a null terminator that > > On this project, the character mnemonic "NUL" is typically used, not > "null" or "NULL" (which is typically reserved for pointers), so: > s/null/NUL/g Correct but I did not think it is a per-project preference; rather, "NUL is the name of the byte" is universal ;-) >> diff --git a/packfile.c b/packfile.c >> @@ -1433,6 +1433,8 @@ static void *unpack_compressed_entry(struct packed_git *p, >> + buffer[size] = 0; /* assure that the buffer is still terminated */ > > I think we normally use '\0' for NUL on this project rather than simply 0. > > The comment is also effectively pure noise since it merely repeats > what the code already states clearly (especially when the code says > "buffer[size] = '\0';"), so dropping the comment altogether would be > reasonable. Both are sensible suggestions. Thanks for making them.