From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: "René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>
Cc: "Git List" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
"Martin Ågren" <martin.agren@gmail.com>,
"Christian Couder" <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] revision: introduce prepare_revision_walk_extended()
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:10:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171218151043.GA9449@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6ace4f8f-824b-2825-ef18-1fccebb9fb5c@web.de>
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 01:12:16PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> prepare_revision_walk() allows callers to take ownership of the array of
> pending objects by setting the rev_info flag "leak_pending" and copying
> the object_array "pending". They use it to clear commit marks after
> setup is done. This interface is brittle enough that it requires
> extensive comments.
>
> Provide an easier way by adding a function that can hand over the array
> to a caller-supplied output parameter and converting all users of the
> flag "leak_pending" to call prepare_revision_walk_extended() instead.
I think this is _better_, but it's still kind of a funny interface.
The root of the matter is that the revision-walking code doesn't clean
up after itself. In every case, the caller is just saving these to clean
up commit marks, isn't it?
Could we instead have an interface like:
revs.clear_commit_marks = 1;
prepare_revision_walk(&revs);
...
finish_revision_walk(&revs);
where that final function would do any cleanup, including clearing the
commit marks. I suspect there are other small bits that get leaked
because there's not really any "destructor" for a revision walk.
It's not as flexible as this whole "make a copy of the pending tips"
thing, but it keeps all of the details abstracted away from the callers.
Alternatively:
> +`prepare_revision_walk_extended`::
> +
> + Like prepare_revision_walk(), but allows callers to take ownership
> + of the array of pending objects by passing an object_array pointer
> + as the second parameter; passing NULL clears the array.
What if we just got rid of this function and had callers do:
object_array_copy(&old_pending, &revs);
prepare_revision_walk(&revs);
...
clear_commit_marks_for_object_array(&old_pending);
That sidesteps all of the memory ownership issues by just creating a
copy. That's less efficient, but I'd be surprised if it matters in
practice (we tend to do one or two revisions per process, there don't
tend to be a lot of pending tips, and we're really just talking about
copying some pointers here).
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-18 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-16 12:12 [PATCH] revision: introduce prepare_revision_walk_extended() René Scharfe
2017-12-17 10:20 ` Martin Ågren
2017-12-18 15:10 ` Jeff King [this message]
2017-12-18 19:18 ` René Scharfe
2017-12-19 11:49 ` Jeff King
2017-12-19 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-12-20 13:08 ` Jeff King
2017-12-21 18:41 ` René Scharfe
2017-12-24 14:22 ` Jeff King
2017-12-25 17:36 ` René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:41 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] revision: get rid of the flag leak_pending René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] commit: avoid allocation in clear_commit_marks_many() René Scharfe
2018-01-10 7:54 ` Jeff King
2017-12-25 17:44 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] commit: use clear_commit_marks_many() in remove_redundant() René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:44 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] ref-filter: use clear_commit_marks_many() in do_merge_filter() René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:44 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] object: add clear_commit_marks_all() René Scharfe
2018-01-10 7:58 ` Jeff King
2018-01-11 18:57 ` René Scharfe
2018-01-12 15:20 ` Jeff King
2017-12-25 17:45 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] bisect: avoid using the rev_info flag leak_pending René Scharfe
2018-01-10 8:07 ` Jeff King
2018-01-11 18:57 ` René Scharfe
2018-01-12 15:23 ` Jeff King
2017-12-25 17:46 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] bundle: " René Scharfe
2017-12-28 21:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-01-10 8:18 ` Jeff King
2017-12-25 17:47 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] checkout: " René Scharfe
2017-12-28 21:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-12-25 17:47 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] revision: remove the unused " René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:48 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] commit: remove unused function clear_commit_marks_for_object_array() René Scharfe
2017-12-28 20:32 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] revision: get rid of the flag leak_pending Junio C Hamano
2018-01-10 8:20 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171218151043.GA9449@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=l.s.r@web.de \
--cc=martin.agren@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).