From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 791D313D502 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:01:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711472466; cv=none; b=YOe/djY0CNnWHT2czRmX+SuUFl+/RK9YrVkF2IiKn/JcxtikeBEkugosR8rk8NTm2O5bffs/4kcxRvrWwzYCkl2vgqXTAc/NwJiRriAWmTN+KNLV6MBT8jMeK1O/O2Y9cuBJVJT1xU+44qVQc6kZ4yBnSpIlUgBV2T5pu23kt9E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711472466; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dQClXk2Zu+Wnvj5r41qqfb37ySH1COhyj48DZCc2iaU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=gJynYGM626S2F3WGEwWogltUZVMBOvS5Gve3+0m0h35b7eBRzam2h4xHZVY+Kz/f4JOPTWL28Kc3vdFk0ubvtuaAQrirQX2Jr+Z3AsA/PhQYWwUJITa8YlDKhHfIHQt4kENxCtwJQu9i3UwIgGWn5keWFdLEAosGtlGB6LC3TGY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=jjgvaDVT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="jjgvaDVT" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D822837AFA; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:01:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=dQClXk2Zu+Wnvj5r41qqfb37ySH1COhyj48DZC c2iaU=; b=jjgvaDVTzdLnCe/Mhj00/IZpx817/T7rZVoOnDA9xb1l5/Rsj8nSiH Dcq7s6wmtnY7zJmguEAEsJmsHYq7SpMmF6Vz7VQ+YG6bEVsPiWRixuiSKK8h1fOG f7xXmHKNpPZCQPHUkuv44Sen914GOMG+v7fBisICy4yPWEpdD+rTg= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE1637AF9; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:01:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50B0537AF5; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:00:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Dirk Gouders Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Emily Shaffer , Kyle Lippincott Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] MyFirstObjectWalk: fix description for counting omitted objects In-Reply-To: <20240326130902.7111-5-dirk@gouders.net> (Dirk Gouders's message of "Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:08:39 +0100") References: <20240326130902.7111-5-dirk@gouders.net> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:00:56 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6ABB3A54-EB92-11EE-8EAE-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Dirk Gouders writes: > diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstObjectWalk.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstObjectWalk.txt > index a06c712e46..6901561263 100644 > --- a/Documentation/MyFirstObjectWalk.txt > +++ b/Documentation/MyFirstObjectWalk.txt > @@ -754,10 +754,12 @@ points to the same tree object as its grandparent.) > === Counting Omitted Objects > > We also have the capability to enumerate all objects which were omitted by a > -filter, like with `git log --filter= --filter-print-omitted`. Asking > -`traverse_commit_list_filtered()` to populate the `omitted` list means that our > -object walk does not perform any better than an unfiltered object walk; all > -reachable objects are walked in order to populate the list. > +filter, like with `git log --filter= --filter-print-omitted`. To do this, > +change `traverse_commit_list()` to `traverse_commit_list_filtered()`, which is > +able to populate an `omitted` list. This list of filtered objects may have > +performance implications, however, because despite filtering objects, the possibly > +much larger set of all reachable objects must be processed in order to > +populate that list. It may be just me not reading what is obvious to everybody else clearly, in which case I am happy to take the above text as-is, but the updated text that says a "list" may have "performance implications" reads a bit odd. It would be understandable if you said "asking for list of filtered objects may have", though. Are you contrasting a call to traverse_commit_list() and traverse_commit_list_filtered() and discussing their relative performance? Of are you contrasting a call to traverse_commit_list_filtered() with and without the omitted parameter, and saying that a call with omitted parameter asks the machinery to do more work so it has to cost more? Other than that I had no trouble with this latest round. Thanks.