Re: [PATCH 0/4] a few mark_parents_uninteresting cleanups

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 5/11/2018 2:00 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> This is a follow-up to the discussion from February:
>
>    https://public-inbox.org/git/1519522496-73090-1-git-send-email-dstolee@microsoft.com/
>
> There I theorized that some of these extra has_object_file() checks were
> unnecessary. After poking around a bit, I've convinced myself that this
> is the case, so here are some patches.
>
> After Stolee's fix in ebbed3ba04 (revision.c: reduce object database
> queries, 2018-02-24), I doubt this will provide any noticeable speedup.
> IMHO the value is just in simplifying the logic.
>
> The first two patches are the actual has_object_file simplifications.
> The second two are an attempt to fix some head-scratching I had while
> reading mark_parents_uninteresting(). I hope the result is easier to
> follow, but I may have just shuffled one confusion for another. :)
>
>    [1/4]: mark_tree_contents_uninteresting(): drop missing object check
>    [2/4]: mark_parents_uninteresting(): drop missing object check
>    [3/4]: mark_parents_uninteresting(): replace list with stack
>    [4/4]: mark_parents_uninteresting(): avoid most allocation
>
>   revision.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>   1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> -Peff

This series looks good to me. I found Patch 3 hard to read in the diff, 
so I just looked at the final result and the new arrangement is very 
clear about how it should behave.

Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>