On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 10:01:59PM +0800, shejialuo wrote:
> @@ -2113,24 +2113,19 @@ static int packed_fsck(struct ref_store *ref_store,
> goto cleanup;
> }
>
> - if (!st.st_size)
> + if (!allocate_snapshot_buffer(&snapshot, fd, &st))
> goto cleanup;
>
> - if (strbuf_read(&packed_ref_content, fd, 0) < 0) {
> - ret = error_errno(_("unable to read '%s'"), refs->path);
> - goto cleanup;
> - }
> -
> - ret = packed_fsck_ref_content(o, ref_store, &sorted, packed_ref_content.buf,
> - packed_ref_content.buf + packed_ref_content.len);
> + ret = packed_fsck_ref_content(o, ref_store, &sorted, snapshot.start,
> + snapshot.eof);
> if (!ret && sorted)
> - ret = packed_fsck_ref_sorted(o, ref_store, packed_ref_content.buf,
> - packed_ref_content.buf + packed_ref_content.len);
> + ret = packed_fsck_ref_sorted(o, ref_store, snapshot.start,
> + snapshot.eof);
OK, so we still use allocate_snapshot_buffer(), but then we hold on to
the snapshot. Good.
I do think just using xmmap() would have been sufficient (and not needed
patch 2 then), but I'm OK with this direction under the logic that we
may end up sharing more code between the normal and fsck code paths
eventually.
-Peff
