Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> The reader often needs to rewind the read-pointer partially while
>>> walking the index (e.g. next_cache_entry() in unpack-trees.c and how
>>> the o->cache_bottom position is used throughout the subsystem).  I
>>> am not sure if this singly-linked list is a good way to go.
>> I'm not very familiar with the unpack-trees code, but from a quick look
>> the pointer (or position in the cache) is always only moved forward.
> I am more worried about o->cache_bottom processing, where it
> currently is an index into an array.
> With your ce->next_in_list_of_read_entries change, a natural rewrite
> would be to point at the ce with o->cache_bottom, but then that
> would mean you cannot in-place replace the entries like we used to
> be able to in an array based implementation.
> But your series does not seem to touch unpack-trees yet, so I may be
> worried too much before it becomes necessary.

Yes, you're right, as Duy mentioned in the other email I just responded
to it makes sense to keep the index around for now.

I looked at the unpack-trees code a bit, and adding a new api and hiding
index_state->cache[] will probably be a bit harder to do than I
originally thought, so it's best to keep that around for now, as we're
still able to get the benefits from partial loading even if it's not
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to