From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.146]) (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 2FC322475E3 for ; Tue, 27 May 2025 10:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.146 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748342405; cv=none; b=Ms5WrjjLT7sFme+zjZwnBSYIkImQcCq91cvCrf7tO93Eq3k6LZXG/teHF2jshH5cHsPxEEihAQ/gRn380eoA6jia+ZlhK3wBjz7pZJYpmNU/HedsCb1u53HEiKI3BEnuVAeHrjAGqBOy1FJ++p0eSuzSJLjo0nQIVG6RfWgTL10= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748342405; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xzeuDoth5D9QKzKpORrriNQgbk18z4qCZnpoyM54M/8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fsnK2GennmgWUHJ8I9oJ1hsNiIeAm5rElGmiziKv2k0go83TYAYvpb9JsDrgu62qHWmoKAyp1C6G877paBly1fiFv98OzsmvmUwEVmorDqC+CL/jqlCqUWO/yFemuuU1ZxbzcSyzkY3Ur7gb80rZd+GZMmRgK0VEk7Q70Opzw9s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=I6i4WNLN; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=p2k6IwW9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.146 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="I6i4WNLN"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="p2k6IwW9" Received: from phl-compute-12.internal (phl-compute-12.phl.internal [10.202.2.52]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370CA1140110; Tue, 27 May 2025 06:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-12.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 27 May 2025 06:40:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1748342403; x=1748428803; bh=+Qn9lH9h5l +VRRdHA18Vk1H8ap7Sqs+0RYiJiIh/kAE=; b=I6i4WNLN9rcWSzxzapRSo5Clrz 44CzRK/JCP9UAwQ9XLpYxlK2p5LACaD5zwZwJi60FTsJfYEbFMlkmn9GH0XP2gdu gaHT2ud96hdbi1aeWWNiVCpgWYXXYpJdkCVjXaDFhVzc2j9/ue764AjZP1r6XfD3 khz0j3v/jdqPe4nDrVACVeCltq5fFvefSxriNUBJDwskEjR0ARAhB1VSJWd47uoF m9rj2fR1MTbd7Sk+QzlP3KJaiY0PEc8vYVK5IAzFE56cnI6Mu86dPMtggAeIEszw TzF2yp15zVWCvCFviAZN6jsYHAcaT5h3w2BrdkDqq+JKeMVt01KeSpxoSHWg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1748342403; x=1748428803; bh=+Qn9lH9h5l+VRRdHA18Vk1H8ap7Sqs+0RYi JiIh/kAE=; b=p2k6IwW9vrIbuhR6thdLBU44kbrCwFYsYnHls80faHw5v+XndTG MNZY/B1P5blJ8llsZC1Gfy6sm53DLFkE9cuSL/YpYk9Ie8r1Ojb6IvoyTjzN9rJR saJwTU+esIvlbzt7oiEdUXDLgfN8YuqdO8tgPakOTSGsYtWwUwVHgy00el0qlJPW ozZPRXR9tFWGnPcu9BThfGYn1roGuD8FUnIDsxaueaZZ42e0qZ0RVxIQjfc/fYBS 5Yy2wL0hzc/V5EN4xJ88crbQOL3daoN6yfMeCDOkn8DZUlUMVcw7qnEIBBGjDsBA pf7GZ70SSiWdlraMPoO8rv7fSzy9l3+foSg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddtgddvtddujeculddtuddrgeefvddrtd dtmdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggft fghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftd dtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhf gggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrghtrhhitghkucfuthgvihhnhhgrrh guthcuoehpshesphhkshdrihhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevkeekfffhiedtledu iefgjedttedvledvudehgfeugedugffhueekhfejvdektdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhnsggprhgt phhtthhopeeipdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehpvghffhesphgvfh hfrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgt phhtthhopehtohhonhesihhothgtlhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehmvgesthhtrgihlh horhhrrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheprghvrghrrggssehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghp thhtohepshhtohhlvggvsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 27 May 2025 06:40:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id c9cd59c9 (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Tue, 27 May 2025 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 12:39:59 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Toon Claes Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Taylor Blau , Derrick Stolee , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 5/5] last-modified: initialize revision machinery without walk Message-ID: References: <20250523-toon-new-blame-tree-v2-0-101e4ca4c1c9@iotcl.com> <20250523-toon-new-blame-tree-v2-5-101e4ca4c1c9@iotcl.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250523-toon-new-blame-tree-v2-5-101e4ca4c1c9@iotcl.com> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 11:33:52AM +0200, Toon Claes wrote: > In a previous commit we inserted a call to 'prepare_revision_walk()' > before we started our traversal. This was done when we leveraged the > revision machinery more (at the time, we were leaning on > 'log_tree_commit()' which only worked after calling > 'prepare_revision_walk()'). > > But, we have since dropped 'log_tree_commit()', so we don't need most of > the initialization work of 'prepare_revision_walk()'. Now we ask it to > do very little work during initialization by setting the '->no_walk' > flag to '1', which leaves its internal state alone enough that we can > still function as normal. > > Unfortunately, this means that we now no longer complain about > non-commit inputs, since the revision machinery check this for us (it > just silently ignores them). Hm. Should we maybe have a manual check that all inputs are commits? It doesn't feel right to me to silently ignore invalid queries. Patrick