[PATCHv2 7/8] list-objects.c: Avoid recomputing interesting-ness for subtrees when possible

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

Weather balloon patch.  Doesn't seem to help much in benchmarks; in fact
I think it sometimes hurts a bit.  Is it worthwhile just in case someone
comes up with a ginormous tree that is really deep with few entries per
tree?  I'm leaning against it, but am sending the patch to at least show
others that it has been considered.

---
No signed-off-by, since I'm not sold on this patch and am somewhat leaning
against it.  It would need a better commit message anyway.  :-)

 list-objects.c |    9 +++++----
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/list-objects.c b/list-objects.c
index bb95962..488428b 100644
--- a/list-objects.c
+++ b/list-objects.c
@@ -61,13 +61,13 @@ static void process_tree(struct rev_info *revs,
 			 struct tree *tree,
 			 show_object_fn show,
 			 struct name_path *path,
-			 const char *name)
+			 const char *name,
+			 int all_interesting)
 {
 	struct object *obj = &tree->object;
 	struct tree_desc desc;
 	struct name_entry entry;
 	struct name_path me;
-	int all_interesting = (revs->diffopt.nr_paths == 0);
 	char *full_prefix = NULL;
 	int full_prefix_len = 0;
 
@@ -112,7 +112,8 @@ static void process_tree(struct rev_info *revs,
 		if (S_ISDIR(entry.mode))
 			process_tree(revs,
 				     lookup_tree(entry.sha1),
-				     show, &me, entry.path);
+				     show, &me, entry.path,
+				     all_interesting);
 		else if (S_ISGITLINK(entry.mode))
 			process_gitlink(revs, entry.sha1,
 					show, &me, entry.path);
@@ -189,7 +190,7 @@ void traverse_commit_list(struct rev_info *revs,
 		}
 		if (obj->type == OBJ_TREE) {
 			process_tree(revs, (struct tree *)obj, show_object,
-				     NULL, name);
+				     NULL, name, revs->diffopt.nr_paths == 0);
 			continue;
 		}
 		if (obj->type == OBJ_BLOB) {
-- 
1.7.2.2.45.ga60f