Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] odb/source: let callers discern missing and corrupt objects

Karthik Nayak <[email protected]> Fri, 21 Aug 2026 05:39:54 -0700

Newsgroups	org.kernel.vger.git
Message-ID	<CAOLa=ZRPudL38f9wTZoRNXLPeEpX5OSC_kaQyG1xgyNNriruMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Patrick Steinhardt <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 05:09:51PM -0400, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> Patrick Steinhardt <[email protected]> writes:
>> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 08:56:50AM -0400, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> Oops. Thanks for the detailed response.
>>
>> I think I made my case in reverse, but my original argument still
>> holds.
>>
>> ret_packed   ret_loose    ret_packed != NOT_FOUND ?   returned
>> -----------  -----------  ---------------------------  -----------------
>> NOT_FOUND    NOT_FOUND    false                        ret_loose (NOT_FOUND)
>> NOT_FOUND    ERROR        false                        ret_loose  (ERROR)
>> ERROR        NOT_FOUND    true                         ret_packed (ERROR)
>> ERROR        ERROR        true                         ret_packed (ERROR)
>>
>> So since we return ret_loose as many times as ret_packed. The comment:
>>
>> > and prefer the error of the packed source in case both reads have
>> > failed.
>>
>> isn't true entirely. So isn't it better modified to something like
>> "prefer other errors over not found errors" or something. I hope that
>> makes sense?
>
> But we don't. As your above table shows, we return errors twice from the
> packed backend and only once from the loose backend. And in case both
> sources returned an error, we prefer the packed one.
>
> I think where we're talking past one another is that I distinguish
> between errors (-1) and NOT_FOUND.
>
> Patrick

Yeah I figured, plus this isn't significant. Thanks for humoring me :)

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 690 B)