kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy	e76a5fb459	list-objects: reduce one argument in mark_edges_uninteresting 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>	11 years ago
Junio C Hamano	4947367267	list-objects: pass callback data to show_objects() 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>	13 years ago
Linus Torvalds	8d2dfc49b1	process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering 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>	16 years ago
Linus Torvalds	cf2ab916af	show_object(): push path_name() call further down 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>	16 years ago
Christian Couder	11c211fa06	list-objects: add "void *data" parameter to show functions 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>	16 years ago
Junio C Hamano	8d1d8f83b5	pack-objects: further work on internal rev-list logic. 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>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	c64ed70d25	Separate object listing routines out of rev-list 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>	18 years ago