From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DDF1F403 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:19:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="qK0/1BJG"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1377330AbiFVRSl (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2022 13:18:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57038 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1377394AbiFVRSg (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2022 13:18:36 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 965E5631A for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id s37so16681543pfg.11 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:18:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YIA9mvV2b2IvExBxnH57L5CTfb/i69dEXTGh/umQzXk=; b=qK0/1BJG3t0xqnSu+jlpUcdxJhsaTrKobY8eplFU9VIvjGVKF1j9lq3/okdv5CEL1+ uBhHtjYftWi2ZdTDUGllJUO5bVIcsxk9zNMUK7cR1zDBjwrgwMTk+wa1sNP8ZYajOPOz tkzmwhxUBMbY9Rr8W9qmRED4CDgWGXqT/+dSxMQJFKx8NApCYwtQtnu97jWsdAxVDVaA 1WpKqhKpE1jQtWIXK045UHssUpqpyxw6Q+ylm0G/mhqLiyPm1Ry3S0iOMiV1o+SinWhg 3rZMj1XtLnjKkxdKHrWvGhJPbPLEkZod2zZJ5z1qu5e1usH1ekBOoEBIwznpHZ8C5c74 UeLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YIA9mvV2b2IvExBxnH57L5CTfb/i69dEXTGh/umQzXk=; b=QeMLppenehl+FvR0MQqe8AEPmEPqqfTFkz1wY5WsgocNYa8q461hsjAuTV/tKGp10Z +T5RjTFw0OIl+k6E4JhHzJi5tvuwepNwlQFG1vpdSGaCMmupVteneLRvPfPrCuTxxojL 4HkleGtXvps/h6T/bcG/q6pYvsKslIyEAQqVzAqf9PvOwh5LMHVPhhSfdtJJc+HnQS7P 3yZXvc1UEpdBGrAX8ftZCmwkcOzQRX6eEsVcnugZJtYcpiN5imrCyhoimf852j58Bn6Y anFFAb3elxQVffsLllo7j+54YwhdSIZm0CcTx3dvYmsWyizy8A/xjj7DFky04IVLYuzk cY8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+sOysHy7xnNbG7Rh7YtvSakC2+6sYs9bgL7e7xrmDdPcXAAYN5 x5gkYsu8uYEvy9gfQabM7qY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1s+sjUqXD+GUZ7vSb92qIhAM7fKPQULUJHytMJHSwlel2etZ8BJSnJftRa3pOsWXdg6gT7XYQ== X-Received: by 2002:a62:388d:0:b0:525:138d:74ea with SMTP id f135-20020a62388d000000b00525138d74eamr22762886pfa.19.1655918314075; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([202.142.80.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a8-20020a62d408000000b00524cb4aae69sm4304969pfh.8.2022.06.22.10.18.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 bits=256/256); Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Abhradeep Chakraborty To: Taylor Blau Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty , Git , Kaartic Sivaraam , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] pack-bitmap: prepare to read lookup table extension Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 22:48:14 +0530 Message-Id: <20220622171814.46313-1-chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.35.1 In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau wrote: > In other words, right now we have to do two queries when an commit > doesn't have a bitmap stored: > > - first, a lookup to see whether we have already loaded a bitmap for > that commit > > - then, a subsequent lookup to see whether the .bitmap file itself has > a bitmap for that commit, but we just haven't loaded it yet > > If we knew that we had loaded all of the bitmaps in the file, then we > could simplify the above two queries into one, since whatever the first > one returns is enough to know whether or not a bitmap exists at all. Hmm, agreed. > Ahhh. Thanks for refreshing my memory. I wonder if you think there is a > convenient way to work some of this into a short comment to help other > readers in the future, too. Actually, Derrick has suggested to go with iterative approach[1] instead of Recursive approach. What's your view on it? > Right, that part makes sense to me. But I wonder if we should still > print something, perhaps just "Bitmap v1 test" or "Bitmap v1 test (%d > entries)" omitting the "loaded" part. Yeah, of course we can! Thanks :) [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/92dc6860-ff35-0989-5114-fe1e220ca10c@github.com/