Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work

Thanks for the reviews! On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:15:58 -0800 > Elijah Newren wrote: > >> -static int display(struct progress *progress, unsigned n, const char *done) >> +static int display(struct

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:15:58 -0800 Elijah Newren wrote: > -static int display(struct progress *progress, unsigned n, const char *done) > +static int display(struct progress *progress, uint64_t n, const char *done) > { > const char *eol, *tp; > > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:15:58 -0800 Elijah Newren wrote: > The possibility of setting merge.renameLimit beyond 2^16 raises the > possibility that the values passed to progress can exceed 2^32. > Use uint64_t, because it "ought to be enough for anybody". :-) > > Signed-off-by:

[PATCH v2 2/4] progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work

The possibility of setting merge.renameLimit beyond 2^16 raises the possibility that the values passed to progress can exceed 2^32. Use uint64_t, because it "ought to be enough for anybody". :-) Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren --- This does imply 64-bit math for all progress