From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout: avoid unncessary match_pathspec calls
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:47:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vr4j52t0z.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1364036142-3031-1-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com> ("Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy"'s message of "Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:55:42 +0700")
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
> ---
> Junio, this patch clearly conflicts wih nd/magic-pathspecs. Do you
> want me to:
>
> - hold it off until nd/magic-pathspecs graduates
> - rebase on top of nd/magic-pathspecs and repost
> - leave it to you to handle conflicts
> ?
I'd prefer to take small, independent and clear improvements first
and worry about larger ones later, so if there were another choice,
i.e.
- eject nd/magic-pathspecs for now, cook this (and other small
independent and clear improvements you may come up with, some of
which might come out of nd/magic-pathspecs itself) and let it
graduate first, and later revisit rerolld nd/magic-pathspecs
that would be the ideal among the given choices ;-).
> for (pos = 0; pos < active_nr; pos++) {
> struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[pos];
> + ce->ce_flags &= ~CE_MATCHED;
> if (opts->source_tree && !(ce->ce_flags & CE_UPDATE))
> continue;
> - match_pathspec(opts->pathspec, ce->name, ce_namelen(ce), 0, ps_matched);
> + if (match_pathspec(opts->pathspec, ce->name,
> + ce_namelen(ce), 0, ps_matched))
> + ce->ce_flags |= CE_MATCHED;
> }
>
> if (report_path_error(ps_matched, opts->pathspec, opts->prefix))
> return 1;
>
> + /*
> + * call match_pathspec on the remaining entries that have not
> + * been done in the previous loop
> + */
> + for (pos = 0; pos < active_nr; pos++) {
> + struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[pos];
> + if (opts->source_tree && !(ce->ce_flags & CE_UPDATE) &&
> + match_pathspec(opts->pathspec, ce->name,
> + ce_namelen(ce), 0, ps_matched))
> + ce->ce_flags |= CE_MATCHED;
> + }
> +
The above is a faithful rewrite, but I have to wonder why you need
two separate loops.
Do you understand what the original loop is doing with ps_matched,
and why the code excludes certain paths while doing so? I didn't
when I read your patch for the first time, as I forgot, until I
checked with 0a1283bc3955 (checkout $tree $path: do not clobber
local changes in $path not in $tree, 2011-09-30)
You don't use ps_matched after report_path_error(); the new loop
shouldn't have to record which pathspec matched.
Also I notice that I forgot to free ps_matched. Perhaps doing it
this way is easier to maintain?
/*
* Make sure all pathspecs participated in locating the
* paths to be checked out.
*/
for (pos = 0; pos < active_nr; pos++) {
if (opts->source_tree && !(ce->ce_flags & CE_UPDATE))
/*
* "git checkout tree-ish -- path", but this entry
* is in the original index; it will not be checked
* out to the working tree and it does not matter
* if pathspec matched this entry. We will not do
* anything to this entry at all.
*/
verify_psmatch = NULL;
else
/*
* Either this entry came from the tree-ish
* we are checking the paths out of, or we
* are checking out of the index.
*/
verify_psmatch = ps_matched;
if (match_pathspec(opts->pathspec, ce->name, ce_namelen(ce),
0, verify_psmatch))
ce->ce_flags |= CE_MATCHED;
}
if (report_path_error(ps_matched, opts->pathspec, opts->prefix))
return 1;
free(ps_matched);
After commenting on the above, it makes me wonder if we even need to
bother marking entries that were in the index that did not come from
the tree-ish we are checking paths out of, though. What breaks if
you did not do the rewrite above and dropped the second loop in your
patch?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-24 6:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-23 10:55 [PATCH] checkout: avoid unncessary match_pathspec calls Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2013-03-24 2:45 ` Eric Sunshine
2013-03-24 6:47 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2013-03-24 12:55 ` [PATCH v2] checkout: avoid unnecessary " Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2013-03-25 16:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-27 5:58 ` [PATCH v3] " Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2013-03-28 22:32 ` 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=7vr4j52t0z.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--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.
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).