From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Matthew DeVore <matvore@comcast.net>
Cc: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>,
Matthew DeVore <matvore@google.com>,
jonathantanmy@google.com, jrn@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org,
dstolee@microsoft.com, jeffhost@microsoft.com,
jrnieder@gmail.com, pclouds@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] list-objects-filter: merge filter data structs
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 12:48:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq4l5dyrcu.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190528224010.GA4700@comcast.net> (Matthew DeVore's message of "Tue, 28 May 2019 15:40:10 -0700")
Matthew DeVore <matvore@comcast.net> writes:
> Simplify the filter execution data logic and structs by putting all
> execution data for all filter types in a single struct. This results in
> a tiny overhead for each filter instance, and in exchange, invoking
> filters is not only easier but the list-objects-filter public API is
> simpler and more opaque.
Hmmm...
> +struct filter_data {
> + /* Used by all filter types. */
> struct oidset *omits;
> +
> + enum list_objects_filter_result (*filter_object_fn)(
> + struct repository *r,
> + enum list_objects_filter_situation filter_situation,
> + struct object *obj,
> + const char *pathname,
> + const char *filename,
> + struct filter_data *filter_data);
> +
> + /* BEGIN tree:<depth> filter data */
> +
> + /*
> + * Maps trees to the minimum depth at which they were seen. It is not
> + * necessary to re-traverse a tree at deeper or equal depths than it has
> + * already been traversed.
> + *
> + * We can't use LOFR_MARK_SEEN for tree objects since this will prevent
> + * it from being traversed at shallower depths.
> + */
> + struct oidmap seen_at_depth;
> +
> + unsigned long exclude_depth;
> + unsigned long current_depth;
> +
> + /* BEGIN blobs:limit=<limit> filter data */
> +
> + unsigned long max_bytes;
> +
> + /* BEGIN sparse:... filter data */
> +
> + struct exclude_list el;
> +
> + size_t nr, alloc;
> + struct frame *array_frame;
> };
I am hoping that I am not misreading the intention but you do not
plan to use the above so that you can say "apply 'tree:depth=4' and
'blobs:limit=1G' at the same time" by filling the fields in a single
struct, do you? For combined filter, you'll still have multiple
instances of filter_data struct, strung together in a list that says
"all of these must be satisfied" or something like that, right?
And if that is the case, I am not sure why the above "struct with
all these fields" is a good idea. If these three (and probably we
will have more as the system evolves) sets of fields in this outer
struct for different filters were enclosed in a union, that would be
a different story, though.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-29 19:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-22 0:21 [PATCH v1 0/5] Filter combination Matthew DeVore
2019-05-22 0:21 ` [PATCH v1 1/5] list-objects-filter: refactor into a context struct Matthew DeVore
2019-05-24 0:49 ` Emily Shaffer
2019-05-28 18:48 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-05-28 22:40 ` [PATCH] list-objects-filter: merge filter data structs Matthew DeVore
2019-05-29 19:48 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-05-29 20:57 ` Jeff Hostetler
2019-05-29 23:10 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-05-30 1:56 ` [RFC PATCH v2] " Matthew DeVore
2019-05-30 16:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-05-30 18:29 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-05-30 19:05 ` [PATCH] " Matthew DeVore
2019-05-22 0:21 ` [PATCH v1 2/5] list-objects-filter-options: error is localizeable Matthew DeVore
2019-05-24 0:55 ` Emily Shaffer
2019-05-28 23:01 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-05-22 0:21 ` [PATCH v1 3/5] list-objects-filter: implement composite filters Matthew DeVore
2019-05-24 21:01 ` Jeff Hostetler
2019-05-28 17:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-05-29 15:02 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-05-29 21:29 ` Jeff Hostetler
2019-05-29 23:27 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-05-30 14:01 ` Jeff Hostetler
2019-05-31 20:53 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-06-03 21:04 ` Jeff Hostetler
2019-06-01 0:11 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-05-28 21:53 ` Emily Shaffer
2019-05-31 20:48 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-05-31 21:10 ` Jeff King
2019-06-01 0:12 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-06-03 12:34 ` Jeff King
2019-06-03 22:22 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-06-04 16:13 ` Jeff King
2019-06-04 17:19 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-06-04 18:51 ` Jeff King
2019-06-04 22:59 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-06-04 23:14 ` Jeff King
2019-06-04 23:49 ` Matthew DeVore
2019-06-09 12:36 ` Jeff King
2019-05-22 0:21 ` [PATCH v1 4/5] list-objects-filter-options: move error check up Matthew DeVore
2019-05-22 0:21 ` [PATCH v1 5/5] list-objects-filter-options: allow mult. --filter Matthew DeVore
2019-06-06 22:44 ` [PATCH v1 0/5] Filter combination Matthew DeVore
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=xmqq4l5dyrcu.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=dstolee@microsoft.com \
--cc=emilyshaffer@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jeffhost@microsoft.com \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=jrn@google.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=matvore@comcast.net \
--cc=matvore@google.com \
--cc=pclouds@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).