From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b1-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.144]) (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 193DF397B0B for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2026 17:08:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.144 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786208884; cv=none; b=AbuTkdKKXlAewjYd6eP6iS6ZgSiPf3s/Ahq5LJ53r797iQ5R/AdcJGpZ9l962PFJtnJ/lUi3+n4XxWyG1Gfp2NOkLoBroyKP57v/OHT/uNRXqEwJ5i6g0Imf/lcFyPI32xzaD8O9nAwWOY8GN8rNuM2Av4Ej7TWed+O6zzkFbm8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786208884; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7EhYwsWhh4hGQVx4QBVq1LLZOwofKe3I67InKKEYw+0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=a1VrIhzWCqCw7KcVhMKsItSgy9Ry6ltTlybdoPDf8GZEeVwbDfhLRnn1DNG6KFA8nAp8QGq+QuJlr723dBr4QoUEDFIoxUm4sezq32o+F6ZQZ4KBtMa9c2oGigQNlcYGw1eybMvkpUq1WAuY6p8YU2UTuvcMxUG/5UiZdCB6h/A= 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=OuvpJfZv; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=i4KaEcmp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.144 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="OuvpJfZv"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="i4KaEcmp" Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0001D000AB; Sat, 8 Aug 2026 13:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 08 Aug 2026 13:08:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; 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=fm2; t=1786208879; x=1786295279; bh=7EhYwsWhh4 hGQVx4QBVq1LLZOwofKe3I67InKKEYw+0=; b=OuvpJfZvM/a7dRI4MCCOIeECyS VkkVD83ZQtz3BNgWTLr94fvAB1da3H7ZXTYFgu6ILd7ii4mFUd2SEp8GVj7EHBvf n0bBa5o6MJSkN2dFSw48dDsxF6ctMGveNrd3tOKRUwi3vPnFzUPioEXLLVcCIpnB geMGWMCniRVfAQ0fSTuA0zZuwL3SjVToiScWEMpqMqMJj9ZOjNsb5VhL/WkhVRrg WG+U044mhnPWHDM1uyO9wUoqyEBVrwoj+irY+CFEz1qBu7pwiC25gbp2Se6btJqX Dyu0bXJnEWFObEMw2Hzi7Tas8J0OksxZSe1ygOGPo+3LZcECHwRqsmQ98jTw== 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=fm3; t= 1786208879; x=1786295279; bh=7EhYwsWhh4hGQVx4QBVq1LLZOwofKe3I67I nKKEYw+0=; b=i4KaEcmp9o3gkH6UaRrNQNdn4LVUTAU6mMEY9wonWw2U62ByJ6i oe/R7MOYo4NB7JuFYx2IFgMi6V6tVrNnNdN185mvltMyrpZFov2a4RgNG3wsYgr8 Q8X4wxijNxM0ZLmsHtU9hFNyLjdyXnVQhOx02/vRP5A1iFl4m+dM0bUm1QReoOAY DKXW04FxViD46Nft8JJL8Pus6LSbXKJwLZlTwEXHgjW+VAOkbw1gSA8O9TrzIKBq hX38wwR4IaEInAgNHS1ETrEdMQe98O2Rb93fYf3M2si+V+iNPCrZTHG0WkEjtTZ7 ZH57b8t6w8r4szb+h20jMZwdLA3OoEloWLw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTF6AUlcD2bOe4t+7Hk1N2Z1+ROdpN4Cch9Vuuuux2x9H5E8YAOBIwH5vUZ4lkYK8o RLHxdmQbgsFZjPAiTVHknUFtO9k6F6Mx38qSXttppHUcJjDmYbPQC1sIquedh2F5KiEf7N SFbnuX0MFFAKVCEVx6Urn6/Y0hmDjtgXsdWJn644hIRMhFi5a6GK8cf7lYTbsqEnPqoFJX qk86XpBIfETA6IonHLWusbYBsrGxAZvOfndRCU3X2MvsESirMVnfZgzHh3SRGXjFrM2K4H xpgw4+ROnBCBf8m0pAiqzNleTl6lI9gO8ZsB8PwfDcTHFJielcLWId53FqDgUwiCOf38ax JxVz4GD3o2nKKa2QcxQvOnunpzAq43/fQyoT6kc8A5A8MpyrpHF7X6W7I6O4218Maretbi FhQcfdnhGm+FedmEg+QvLhxn9OcZMMIeZnMkJQ2JawqwSZONhKLzyd3ZNQu/BVWx50g3Jw reDTU/ZMfLHIhB1gWyNfAQdRXXdmDf0ZHYBpTvG0N/co+sMl0J2UgM5G+Rk7F/uYF5udh+ 6mQm/EUMP6KVGC8MheGXINOnTWWbG7d3iPth117OLzJqijWalAQZRYpb5diwiEtgZgspqE cUban7W3sfRLfdjneOVyCNgol1gIBgHMwlbSM7yhhGiq6gyHcZQHMGqnmC1Q X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 8 Aug 2026 13:07:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Toon Claes Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Gusted , Jeff King , Taylor Blau Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] last-modified: keep per-path Bloom filters for wildcard pathspecs In-Reply-To: <20260807-toon-speed-up-last-modified-v2-6-7d87bbdeaf9b@iotcl.com> (Toon Claes's message of "Fri, 07 Aug 2026 20:26:52 +0200") References: <20260807-toon-speed-up-last-modified-v2-0-7d87bbdeaf9b@iotcl.com> <20260807-toon-speed-up-last-modified-v2-6-7d87bbdeaf9b@iotcl.com> Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2026 10:07:57 -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 Toon Claes writes: > The last-modified builtin expands the pathspec to a set of literal paths > and builds a Bloom key for each. During the walk it looks those keys up > in the commit's filter to decide whether the commit is worth diffing. > These lookups need `bloom_filter_settings` for the key hashing. > > prepare_revision_walk() runs prepare_to_use_bloom_filter() to build the > pathspec key vectors. For a pathspec that cannot be turned into a Bloom > key, such as a top-level wildcard like "*.c", that function gives up and > clears `bloom_filter_settings`. > > Restore `bloom_filter_settings` after prepare_revision_walk() so the > per-path check keeps working for wildcard pathspecs. Should a new test or two cover a case where a pathspec with a top-level wildcard is supplied, and ensure that this restoration kicks in? The machinery should work correctly with or without Bloom filters. Without trace instrumentation, such a test might not exhibit any behavior difference even when the filter is not restored. However, the failure scenario is specific enough to make a good test case. Thanks.