Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] submodule: parallelize diff

[Calvin Wan <calvinwan@google.com>]

Hi Junio

I've sent out a reroll to fix this. Thanks!

Passing leaks CI at:
https://github.com/calvin-wan-google/git/actions/runs/3942292098
(linux-musl technically failed, but it looks like for other reasons)


On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 1:31 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Calvin Wan <calvinwan@google.com> writes:
>
> > Original cover letter for context:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20221011232604.839941-1-calvinwan@google.com/
> > ...
> > Calvin Wan (5):
> >   run-command: add duplicate_output_fn to run_processes_parallel_opts
> >   submodule: strbuf variable rename
> >   submodule: move status parsing into function
> >   diff-lib: refactor match_stat_with_submodule
> >   diff-lib: parallelize run_diff_files for submodules
> >
> >  Documentation/config/submodule.txt |  12 ++
> >  diff-lib.c                         | 103 +++++++++++--
> >  run-command.c                      |  13 +-
> >  run-command.h                      |  24 +++
> >  submodule.c                        | 229 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  submodule.h                        |   9 ++
> >  t/helper/test-run-command.c        |  21 +++
> >  t/t0061-run-command.sh             |  39 +++++
> >  t/t4027-diff-submodule.sh          |  19 +++
> >  t/t7506-status-submodule.sh        |  19 +++
> >  10 files changed, 441 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
>
> While the topic is marked as "Needs review" in the recent "What's
> cooking" reports, merging this topic also breaks the "linux-leaks"
> job by causing many tests fail:
>
>     t3040-subprojects-basic.sh
>     t4010-diff-pathspec.sh
>     t4015-diff-whitespace.sh
>     t4027-diff-submodule.sh
>     t7403-submodule-sync.sh
>     t7409-submodule-detached-work-tree.sh
>     t7416-submodule-dash-url.sh
>     t7450-bad-git-dotfiles.sh
>     t7506-status-submodule.sh
>
> Two of the test scripts are touched by this topic, and their
> breakage could be caused by newly using other git subcommands that
> were known to be leaking (iow, not because this series introduced
> new leaks). It also is possible that they fail because this series
> added new leaks to the commands these two test scripts use.  In
> either case, other tests that haven't been touched by this topic
> were definitely broken by new leaks introduced by the changes made
> by this series.
>
> Anybody interested should be able to see the breakage themselves by
> checking out 'seen' and running
>
>     SANTIZE=leak GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true \
>     make test
>
> to see the tree with all in-flight topics are clean, and then by
> running the same test after merging this topic to 'seen'.
>
> Thanks.