On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> Christian Couder <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> + case 0:
>> + return 1; /* 0% means always write a new shared index */
>> + case 100:
>> + return 0; /* 100% means never write a new shared index */
>> + default:
>> + ; /* do nothing: just use the configured value */
>> + }
>
> Just like you did in 04/21, write "break" to avoid mistakes made in
> the future, i.e.
>
> default:
> break; /* just use the configured value */
Ok, I will do that.
>> +
>> + /* Count not shared entries */
>> + for (i = 0; i < istate->cache_nr; i++) {
>> + struct cache_entry *ce = istate->cache[i];
>> + if (!ce->index)
>> + not_shared++;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return istate->cache_nr * max_split < not_shared * 100;
>
> On a 32-bit arch with 2G int and more than 20 million paths in the
> index, multiplying by max_split that can come close to 100 can
> theoretically cause integer overflow, but in practice it probably
> does not matter. Or does it?
>From a cursory look a "struct cache_entry" takes at least 80 bytes
without counting the "char name[FLEX_ARRAY]" on a 32 bit machine, so I
don't think it would be a good idea to work on a repo with 20 million
paths on a 32 bit machine, but maybe theoretically it could be a
problem.
To be safe I think I will use:
return (int64_t)istate->cache_nr * max_split < (int64_t)not_shared * 100;
