mark_edges_uninteresting() is always called with this form
mark_edges_uninteresting(revs->commits, revs, ...);
Remove the first argument and let mark_edges_uninteresting figure that
out by itself. It helps answer the question "are this commit list and
revs related in any way?" when looking at mark_edges_uninteresting
implementation.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The traverse_commit_list() API takes two callback functions, one to show
commit objects, and the other to show other kinds of objects. Even though
the former has a callback data parameter, so that the callback does not
have to rely on global state, the latter does not.
Give the show_objects() callback the same callback data parameter.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* lt/pack-object-memuse:
show_object(): push path_name() call further down
process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering
Conflicts:
builtin-pack-objects.c
builtin-rev-list.c
list-objects.c
list-objects.h
upload-pack.c
In particular, pushing the "path_name()" call _into_ the show() function
would seem to allow
- more clarity into who "owns" the name (ie now when we free the name in
the show_object callback, it's because we generated it ourselves by
calling path_name())
- not calling path_name() at all, either because we don't care about the
name in the first place, or because we are actually happy walking the
linked list of "struct name_path *" and the last component.
Now, I didn't do that latter optimization, because it would require some
more coding, but especially looking at "builtin-pack-objects.c", we really
don't even want the whole pathname, we really would be better off with the
list of path components.
Why? We use that name for two things:
- add_preferred_base_object(), which actually _wants_ to traverse the
path, and now does it by looking for '/' characters!
- for 'name_hash()', which only cares about the last 16 characters of a
name, so again, generating the full name seems to be just unnecessary
work.
Anyway, so I didn't look any closer at those things, but it did convince
me that the "show_object()" calling convention was crazy, and we're
actually better off doing _less_ in list-objects.c, and giving people
access to the internal data structures so that they can decide whether
they want to generate a path-name or not.
This patch does that, and then for people who did use the name (even if
they might do something more clever in the future), it just does the
straightforward "name = path_name(path, component); .. free(name);" thing.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Here's a less trivial thing, and slightly more dubious one.
I was looking at that "struct object_array objects", and wondering why we
do that. I have honestly totally forgotten. Why not just call the "show()"
function as we encounter the objects? Rather than add the objects to the
object_array, and then at the very end going through the array and doing a
'show' on all, just do things more incrementally.
Now, there are possible downsides to this:
- the "buffer using object_array" _can_ in theory result in at least
better I-cache usage (two tight loops rather than one more spread out
one). I don't think this is a real issue, but in theory..
- this _does_ change the order of the objects printed. Instead of doing a
"process_tree(revs, commit->tree, &objects, NULL, "");" in the loop
over the commits (which puts all the root trees _first_ in the object
list, this patch just adds them to the list of pending objects, and
then we'll traverse them in that order (and thus show each root tree
object together with the objects we discover under it)
I _think_ the new ordering actually makes more sense, but the object
ordering is actually a subtle thing when it comes to packing
efficiency, so any change in order is going to have implications for
packing. Good or bad, I dunno.
- There may be some reason why we did it that odd way with the object
array, that I have simply forgotten.
Anyway, now that we don't buffer up the objects before showing them
that may actually result in lower memory usage during that whole
traverse_commit_list() phase.
This is seriously not very deeply tested. It makes sense to me, it seems
to pass all the tests, it looks ok, but...
Does anybody remember why we did that "object_array" thing? It used to be
an "object_list" a long long time ago, but got changed into the array due
to better memory usage patterns (those linked lists of obejcts are
horrible from a memory allocation standpoint). But I wonder why we didn't
do this back then. Maybe there's a reason for it.
Or maybe there _used_ to be a reason, and no longer is.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The goal of this patch is to get rid of the "static struct rev_info
revs" static variable in "builtin-rev-list.c".
To do that, we need to pass the revs to the "show_commit" function
in "builtin-rev-list.c" and this in turn means that the
"traverse_commit_list" function in "list-objects.c" must be passed
functions pointers to functions with 2 parameters instead of one.
So we have to change all the callers and all the functions passed
to "traverse_commit_list".
Anyway this makes the code more clean and more generic, so it
should be a good thing in the long run.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This teaches the internal rev-list logic to understand options
that are needed for pack handling: --all, --unpacked, and --thin.
It also moves two functions from builtin-rev-list to list-objects
so that the two programs can share more code.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Create a separate file, list-objects.c, and move object listing
routines from rev-list to it. The next round will use it in
pack-objects directly.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
