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 hidden. -- 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