From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use struct tree in diff-tree Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:07:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <7virs0uma8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Daniel Barkalow , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 31 23:08:38 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F43fQ-0004hK-Ao for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:08:04 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751591AbWAaWHi (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:07:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751593AbWAaWHi (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:07:38 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:16546 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751589AbWAaWHh (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:07:37 -0500 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k0VM7VDZ009509 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:07:31 -0800 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k0VM7U1Q002281; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:07:30 -0800 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7virs0uma8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.67__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.129 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > The one to git-tar-tree I've already applied, mostly because I > was not careful enough and especially I did not care enough > about performance of that program. On my slow machine the tip > of kernel before you came back takes 9.2 seconds wallclock as > opposed to 8.7 seconds to tar up, so the patch degrades the > performance by about 5%. Maybe we would want to revert that one > as well. Hmm. Rather than revert it outright, it might be better to make it use the nicer parsing functions and "struct tree_desc". It shouldn't look _that_ different from the "struct tree" version: instead of doing item = item->next; it would do update_tree_entry(tree); instead. Give me a minute, I'll send you patches. Linus