All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, sunshine@sunshineco.com, jrnieder@gmail.com,
	peff@peff.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] patch-id: make it stable against hunk reordering
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:52:02 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140330105202.GA24476@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqha6i9lle.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:20:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Patch id changes if you reorder hunks in a diff.
> > As the result is functionally equivalent, this is surprising to many
> > people.
> > In particular, reordering hunks is helpful to make patches
> > more readable (e.g. API header diff before implementation diff).
> > In git, it is often done e.g. using the "-O <orderfile>" option,
> > so supporting it better has value.
> >
> > Hunks within file can be reordered manually provided
> > the same pathname can appear more than once in the input.
> >
> > Change patch-id behaviour making it stable against
> > hunk reodering:
> > 	- prepend header to each hunk (if not there)
> > 		Note: POSIX requires patch to be robust against hunk reordering
> > 		provided each diff hunk has a header:
> > 		http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/patch.html
> > 		If the patch file contains more than one patch, patch will attempt to
> > 		apply each of them as if they came from separate patch files. (In this
> > 		case the name of the patch file must be determinable for each diff
> > 		listing.)
> >
> > 	- calculate SHA1 hash for each hunk separately
> > 	- sum all hashes to get patch id
> >
> > Add a new flag --unstable to get the historical behaviour.
> >
> > Add --stable which is a nop, for symmetry.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes from v1: documented motivation for supporting
> > hunk reordering (and not just file reordering).
> > No code changes.
> >
> > Junio, you didn't respond so I'm not sure whether I convinced
> > you that supporting hunk reordering within file has value.
> > So I kept this functionality around for now, if
> > you think I should drop this, please let me know explicitly.
> > Thanks, and sorry about being dense!
> 
> The motivation I read from the exchange was that:
> 
>  (1) we definitely want to support a mode that is stable with use of
>      "diff -O" (i.e. reordering patches per paths);
> 
>  (2) supporting a patch with swapped "hunks" does not have any
>      practical value.  When you have a patch to the same file F with
>      two hunks starting at lines 20 and 40, manually reordering
>      hunks to create a patch that shows the hunk that starts at line
>      40 and then the other hunk that starts at line 20 is not a
>      useful exercise;

I agree, especially since the resulting patch can't be applied with
either patch or git apply.

>  (3) but supporting a patch that touches the same path more than
>      once is in line with what "patch" and "git apply" after
>      7a07841c (git-apply: handle a patch that touches the same path
>      more than once better, 2008-06-27) do.
> 
> In other words, the goal of this change would be to give the same id
> for all these three:
> 
>     (A) straight-forward:
> 
>         diff --git a/foo.c b/foo.c
>         --- a/foo.c
>         +++ b/foo.c
>         @@ -20,1 +20,1 @@
> 
>         -foo
>         +bar
> 
>         @@ -40,1 +40,1 @@
> 
>         -frotz
>         +xyzzy
> 
>     (B) as two patches concatenated together:
> 
>         diff --git a/foo.c b/foo.c
>         --- a/foo.c
>         +++ b/foo.c
>         @@ -20,1 +20,1 @@
> 
>         -foo
>         +bar
> 
>         diff --git a/foo.c b/foo.c
>         --- a/foo.c
>         +++ b/foo.c
>         @@ -40,1 +40,1 @@
> 
>         -frotz
>         +xyzzy
> 
>     (C) the same as (B) but with a swapped order:
> 
>         diff --git a/foo.c b/foo.c
>         --- a/foo.c
>         +++ b/foo.c
>         @@ -40,1 +40,1 @@
> 
>         -frotz
>         +xyzzy
>         diff --git a/foo.c b/foo.c
>         --- a/foo.c
>         +++ b/foo.c
>         @@ -20,1 +20,1 @@
> 
>         -foo
>         +bar
> 
> Am I reading you correctly?

Absolutely.

> If that is the case, I think I can buy such a change.  It appears to
> me that in addition to changing the way the bytes form multiple
> hunks are hashed, it would need to hash the file-level headers
> together with each hunk when processing input (A) in order to make
> the output consistent with the output for the latter two.

Exactly. This is what this change attempts to do:
+                                   if (hunks) {
+                                           flush_one_hunk(result, &ctx);
+                                           memcpy(&ctx, &header_ctx,
+                                                  sizeof ctx);
+                                   } else {
+                                           /* Save ctx for next hunk.  */
+                                           memcpy(&header_ctx, &ctx,
+                                                  sizeof ctx);
+                                   }

I'll add more code comments to clarify the logic here.

> Alternatively, you could hash the header for the same path only once
> when processing input like (B) or (C) and mix.  That would also give
> you the same result as processing (A) in a straight-forward way.


Yes, that is also possible.
I think I slightly prefer the former way because this
variant gives the same result for
         diff --git a/foo.c b/foo.c
         --- a/foo.c
         +++ b/foo.c
         @@ -20,2 +20,3 @@
 
         +bar
 
         diff --git a/bar.c b/bar.c
         --- a/bar.c
         +++ b/bar.c
         @@ -40,2 +40,3 @@
 
         +foo

and
         diff --git a/bar.c b/bar.c
         --- a/bar.c
         +++ b/bar.c
         @@ -20,2 +20,3 @@
 
         +foo
 
         diff --git a/foo.c b/foo.c
         --- a/foo.c
         +++ b/foo.c
         @@ -40,2 +40,3 @@
 
         +bar


but if you disagree, pls let me know - it's not
a strong preference.

> >  builtin/patch-id.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/patch-id.c b/builtin/patch-id.c
> > index 3cfe02d..253ad87 100644
> > --- a/builtin/patch-id.c
> > +++ b/builtin/patch-id.c
> > @@ -1,17 +1,14 @@
> >  #include "builtin.h"
> >  
> > -static void flush_current_id(int patchlen, unsigned char *id, git_SHA_CTX *c)
> > +static void flush_current_id(int patchlen, unsigned char *id, unsigned char *result)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned char result[20];
> >  	char name[50];
> >  
> >  	if (!patchlen)
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	git_SHA1_Final(result, c);
> >  	memcpy(name, sha1_to_hex(id), 41);
> >  	printf("%s %s\n", sha1_to_hex(result), name);
> > -	git_SHA1_Init(c);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int remove_space(char *line)
> > @@ -56,10 +53,30 @@ static int scan_hunk_header(const char *p, int *p_before, int *p_after)
> >  	return 1;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int get_one_patchid(unsigned char *next_sha1, git_SHA_CTX *ctx, struct strbuf *line_buf)
> > +static void flush_one_hunk(unsigned char *result, git_SHA_CTX *ctx)
> >  {
> > -	int patchlen = 0, found_next = 0;
> > +	unsigned char hash[20];
> > +	unsigned short carry = 0;
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	git_SHA1_Final(hash, ctx);
> > +	git_SHA1_Init(ctx);
> > +	/* 20-byte sum, with carry */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < 20; ++i) {
> > +		carry += result[i] + hash[i];
> > +		result[i] = carry;
> > +		carry >>= 8;
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +static int get_one_patchid(unsigned char *next_sha1, unsigned char *result,
> > +			   struct strbuf *line_buf, int stable)
> > +{
> > +	int patchlen = 0, found_next = 0, hunks = 0;
> >  	int before = -1, after = -1;
> > +	git_SHA_CTX ctx, header_ctx;
> > +
> > +	git_SHA1_Init(&ctx);
> > +	hashclr(result);
> >  
> >  	while (strbuf_getwholeline(line_buf, stdin, '\n') != EOF) {
> >  		char *line = line_buf->buf;
> > @@ -99,6 +116,18 @@ static int get_one_patchid(unsigned char *next_sha1, git_SHA_CTX *ctx, struct st
> >  			if (!memcmp(line, "@@ -", 4)) {
> >  				/* Parse next hunk, but ignore line numbers.  */
> >  				scan_hunk_header(line, &before, &after);
> > +				if (stable) {
> > +					if (hunks) {
> > +						flush_one_hunk(result, &ctx);
> > +						memcpy(&ctx, &header_ctx,
> > +						       sizeof ctx);
> > +					} else {
> > +						/* Save ctx for next hunk.  */
> > +						memcpy(&header_ctx, &ctx,
> > +						       sizeof ctx);
> > +					}
> > +				}
> > +				hunks++;
> >  				continue;
> >  			}
> >  
> > @@ -107,7 +136,10 @@ static int get_one_patchid(unsigned char *next_sha1, git_SHA_CTX *ctx, struct st
> >  				break;
> >  
> >  			/* Else we're parsing another header.  */
> > +			if (stable && hunks)
> > +				flush_one_hunk(result, &ctx);
> >  			before = after = -1;
> > +			hunks = 0;
> >  		}
> >  
> >  		/* If we get here, we're inside a hunk.  */
> > @@ -119,39 +151,46 @@ static int get_one_patchid(unsigned char *next_sha1, git_SHA_CTX *ctx, struct st
> >  		/* Compute the sha without whitespace */
> >  		len = remove_space(line);
> >  		patchlen += len;
> > -		git_SHA1_Update(ctx, line, len);
> > +		git_SHA1_Update(&ctx, line, len);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (!found_next)
> >  		hashclr(next_sha1);
> >  
> > +	flush_one_hunk(result, &ctx);
> > +
> >  	return patchlen;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static void generate_id_list(void)
> > +static void generate_id_list(int stable)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned char sha1[20], n[20];
> > -	git_SHA_CTX ctx;
> > +	unsigned char sha1[20], n[20], result[20];
> >  	int patchlen;
> >  	struct strbuf line_buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> >  
> > -	git_SHA1_Init(&ctx);
> >  	hashclr(sha1);
> >  	while (!feof(stdin)) {
> > -		patchlen = get_one_patchid(n, &ctx, &line_buf);
> > -		flush_current_id(patchlen, sha1, &ctx);
> > +		patchlen = get_one_patchid(n, result, &line_buf, stable);
> > +		flush_current_id(patchlen, sha1, result);
> >  		hashcpy(sha1, n);
> >  	}
> >  	strbuf_release(&line_buf);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static const char patch_id_usage[] = "git patch-id < patch";
> > +static const char patch_id_usage[] = "git patch-id [--stable | --unstable] < patch";
> >  
> >  int cmd_patch_id(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >  {
> > -	if (argc != 1)
> > +	int stable;
> > +	if (argc == 2 && !strcmp(argv[1], "--stable"))
> > +		stable = 1;
> > +	else if (argc == 2 && !strcmp(argv[1], "--unstable"))
> > +		stable = 0;
> > +	else if (argc == 1)
> > +		stable = 1;
> > +	else
> >  		usage(patch_id_usage);
> >  
> > -	generate_id_list();
> > +	generate_id_list(stable);
> >  	return 0;
> >  }

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-30 10:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-28 12:30 [PATCH v2 1/3] patch-id: make it stable against hunk reordering Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-03-28 12:30 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] patch-id: document new behaviour Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-03-28 12:30 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] patch-id-test: test new --stable and --unstable flags Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-03-28 18:20 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] patch-id: make it stable against hunk reordering Junio C Hamano
2014-03-28 19:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-30 10:52   ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2014-03-28 22:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-28 22:26   ` Junio C Hamano

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

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140330105202.GA24476@redhat.com \
    --to=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=sunshine@sunshineco.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.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.