Re: [PATCH 5/5] midx: return a `packed_git` pointer from `prepare_midx_pack()`

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:18:06PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 09:24:03AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 02:42:03PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > > diff --git a/midx.c b/midx.c
> > > index fbce88bd46..f7f509cf46 100644
> > > --- a/midx.c
> > > +++ b/midx.c
> > > @@ -449,50 +449,48 @@ static uint32_t midx_for_pack(struct multi_pack_index **_m,
> > >  	return pack_int_id - m->num_packs_in_base;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -int prepare_midx_pack(struct repository *r, struct multi_pack_index *m,
> > > -		      uint32_t pack_int_id)
> > > +struct packed_git *prepare_midx_pack(struct repository *r,
> > > +				     struct multi_pack_index *m,
> > > +				     uint32_t pack_int_id)
> > >  {
> > > -	struct strbuf pack_name = STRBUF_INIT;
> > > -	struct strbuf key = STRBUF_INIT;
> > > -	struct packed_git *p;
> > > +	uint32_t pack_pos = midx_for_pack(&m, pack_int_id);
> > >
> > > -	pack_int_id = midx_for_pack(&m, pack_int_id);
> > > +	if (!m->packs[pack_pos]) {
> > > +		struct strbuf pack_name = STRBUF_INIT;
> > > +		struct strbuf key = STRBUF_INIT;
> > > +		struct packed_git *p;
> > >
> > > -	if (m->packs[pack_int_id] == (void *)(intptr_t)-1)
> > > -		return 1;
> >
> > Ah, so this series builds on top of my patch that introduces the
> > negative lookup cache? That wasn't quite clear to me and makes it a bit
> > hard to iterate on my patch now.
> 
> Eek, sorry for the confusion. I mentioned it in the beginning of my
> cover letter as well as the (less visible) "base-commit" identifier. Is
> there another spot where I could have highlighted the dependency more
> clearly?

Oh, it was right at the top of that mail. Maybe the square brackets have
made me skip it? No idea. In any case it was present, I just happened to
read over it.

> > Could I suggest that you maybe include that patch as part of this
> > series so that those can be iterated on in tandem?
> 
> I could, however your branch is already tentatively marked for 'next',
> and Junio applied this topic to a branch based on yours as I had
> suggested. So we could change it, but I think it would be more of a
> hassle for Junio, so I'd rather avoid doing so.
> 
> Are there changes that you want to make on top of your patch?

The only change was that I wanted to add is the `(void *)(intptr_t)-1`
part with a macro, as proposed by Peff. You know, it should be trivial
to adapt to that change, so I'll just send out a new version now, which
should then probably be merged down to `next` soonish anyway.

Patrick