From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C70DE168DC for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712772623; cv=none; b=DQC6yBqFSTaNIwecpXd/X2NrzI5z4xgZYWbrHDsu2m++X/q3cLz3HyhOU3/nm0HeB17UgPJleHylwC/sx3rhn8sxN5ffo/CKShGVEufWTbhuvpKAMdnlxPmwBpUsLiH4jqN6Df8SW/Qz7GILLIgfUtisw/KSPcWWtC2QCKwhCWA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712772623; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3HcfYHuqh2i6mrDwLhQo9O300JVdnlwgLPiuMr88T+0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=JTKEwPtdxC2glCj8YoENWkLwrxzwSf8S34Bmes8jA7WsK39atqfhvXjESv5ZZWVnCFvF6UfoMvStH/8XtVz4OcqZobEPJahxAVwqrZvJsrLMLp/ah5Raqxn0be66GkZi2J6l/nUEayriqN4DQGNmt+VBs7glqzqCLOU0uspYWF8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Received: (qmail 15664 invoked by uid 109); 10 Apr 2024 18:10:21 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:10:21 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 18412 invoked by uid 111); 10 Apr 2024 18:10:22 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:10:21 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:10:20 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren , Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/24] pack-bitmap: move some initialization to `bitmap_writer_init()` Message-ID: <20240410181020.GD2260545@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 06:05:13PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > The pack-bitmap-writer machinery uses a oidmap (backed by khash.h) to > map from commits selected for bitmaps (by OID) to a bitmapped_commit > structure (containing the bitmap itself, among other things like its XOR > offset, etc.) > > This map was initialized at the end of `bitmap_writer_build()`. New > entries are added in `pack-bitmap-write.c::store_selected()`, which is > called by the bitmap_builder machinery (which is responsible for > traversing history and generating the actual bitmaps). > > Reorganize when this field is initialized and when entries are added to > it so that we can quickly determine whether a commit is a candidate for > pseudo-merge selection, or not (since it was already selected to receive > a bitmap, and thus is ineligible for pseudo-merge inclusion). OK, makes sense. I don't think this should violate any assumptions in the current bitmap code (and the sanity checks for duplicate/missing entries in the hash seem right to me). -Peff