From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.155]) (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 6DA85221554 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 07:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765264912; cv=none; b=cAPaavCCrGudyZNLcntZNJ5Yhr/Y6Yk56wp/fhJmMgaPo0uo+jlunA+l2Q8MeFHR3e8CPfKCoKHH4LGHTrZk9LQE/rhF4GuHgVoo3MLIX5Cm7JcZTNrs7gdA/rixqSUXSspUMnJXpVXYdzDGvnWsmrOq+Pezlz50esZe6PWf3Vg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765264912; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ESfLThJvn7ZurAeTZQ5qghRJEEc4RerxO48EKEZlhOo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jAEVPNMgvyrmt9OyJe7YDytsJXMHU2f4IvJMKdveDn0MTJN7JYbotpV7wKQ+KHdZ5R0P/0XF6A1OhMvwS7NTNMXsD8Zxt82qTaCvxZwDa2Ipg8tUMdB+VZOiBnbTZIpZyTlPuDaqL54rAnXlRx9Wx0f+VLRUeCGnicyQ8ta97us= 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=OWmdRcse; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=PYZJy7C2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 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="OWmdRcse"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="PYZJy7C2" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AEE1400085; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 02:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 09 Dec 2025 02:21:48 -0500 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=1765264908; x=1765351308; bh=lNsroyvQgx JXw2dMwc+r7OgQfZadof+1OymLPKxtiZg=; b=OWmdRcse4BoRlzoPMU9chFKcMg LNeeGvtlnyeTs8qraxK/2IOC6Xt48Yhk550p1ycVr6gUcqg6DyZz4dg8qO9pQkf6 tjqRxZdUzjee0CLU7jE841JH5vyaayAAD1WvdaBXENPw1u4rpu4YBYehoTdJXFFQ rZWB0clWELcRp0eR7exIB0dnOlgCE9aEQt9zRD6B4JDeH9VYZJk5S1bhsSnE3AEX 3tx+v8pLEvqvOL8aozwEOyAkwCMu32wK9+ITohRf8lZw4mOJc7k3LlZ83jjib535 xU5U6y4Lwr10FD/5CbH0aN6GAfOI4qz2UJUsCcugYFHiHmqaPOGuSixCO+mQ== 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= 1765264908; x=1765351308; bh=lNsroyvQgxJXw2dMwc+r7OgQfZadof+1Oym LPKxtiZg=; b=PYZJy7C2XY3jV4xvD6NdquFnOYI2diH1Njq0pP4bsiEdURojKyi fZhQGAqRvsPyIQKUQCANSvTcIHlHSAPrb1zN0t/8kur5S9xF4uxtUYPKfDJtFRpi aqUiyx8K7SJsiP8xOToVHMX72CLDZcFQzn7/1qXPPUsebGQpw6cQ/nnhYXuhJOTr j3ra/UwpALwrB7NSPSbMpz4wxTGXVoAd+z/8Z9y2bmhkwAPKAutWCjlZuP2zwHXz byD1tG+qCbTlGVv1THcIg8jKbP3GuRAz6HJH9RnZX/UcrPkYZDljyoWSUnhUoCqP y6S8736hOI3HvErmMd7lhKgSR5tkNqorUNg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgddukeelhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrghtrhhitghk ucfuthgvihhnhhgrrhguthcuoehpshesphhkshdrihhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpe evkeekfffhiedtleduiefgjedttedvledvudehgfeugedugffhueekhfejvdektdenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpshesphhksh drihhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeehpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthho pehpvghffhesphgvfhhfrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogi drtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehmvgesthhtrgihlhhorhhrrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohep nhgvfihrvghnsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvg hrnhgvlhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 02:21:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id f96e3bd9 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 9 Dec 2025 07:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 08:21:43 +0100 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren , Jeff King , Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/17] midx: enable reachability bitmaps during MIDX compaction Message-ID: 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sat, Dec 06, 2025 at 03:31:50PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > Enable callers to generate reachability bitmaps when performing MIDX > layer compaction by combining all existing bitmaps from the compacted > layers. > > Note that the because of the object/pack ordering described by the s/that the because/that because/ > previous commit, the pseudo-pack order for the compacted MIDX is the > same as concatenating the individual pseudo-pack orderings for each > layer in the compaction range. > > As a result, the only non-test or documentation change necessary is to > treat all objects as non-preferred during compaction so as not to > disturb the object ordering. > > In the future, we may want to adjust which commit(s) receive > reachability bitmaps when compacting multiple .bitmap files into one, or > even generate new bitmaps (e.g., if the references have moved > significantly since the .bitmap was generated). This commit only > implements combining all existing bitmaps in range together in order to > demonstrate and lay the groundwork for more exotic strategies. Will there also be a follow-up patch series that introduces geometric repacking for multi-pack indices? > @@ -216,6 +216,8 @@ static int cmd_multi_pack_index_compact(int argc, const char **argv, > > struct option *options; > static struct option builtin_multi_pack_index_compact_options[] = { > + OPT_BIT(0, "bitmap", &opts.flags, N_("write multi-pack bitmap"), > + MIDX_WRITE_BITMAP | MIDX_WRITE_REV_INDEX), > OPT_BIT(0, "incremental", &opts.flags, > N_("write a new incremental MIDX"), MIDX_WRITE_INCREMENTAL), > OPT_END(), Is this new flag actually incompatible with the incremental flag like you claimed in the preceding commit? I had the impression that it should be possible to write incremental bitmaps now. If that's not the case, we should probably have a call to `die_for_imcopatible_opt2()` somewhere. Patrick