git/builtin-pack-objects.c, branch v1.6.3

Fix typos / spelling in comments

2009-04-23T02:02:12Z

Signed-off-by: Mike Ralphson Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'lt/pack-object-memuse'

2009-04-18T21:46:17Z

* lt/pack-object-memuse: show_object(): push path_name() call further down process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering Conflicts: builtin-pack-objects.c builtin-rev-list.c list-objects.c list-objects.h upload-pack.c

show_object(): push path_name() call further down

2009-04-13T00:28:31Z

In particular, pushing the "path_name()" call _into_ the show() function would seem to allow - more clarity into who "owns" the name (ie now when we free the name in the show_object callback, it's because we generated it ourselves by calling path_name()) - not calling path_name() at all, either because we don't care about the name in the first place, or because we are actually happy walking the linked list of "struct name_path *" and the last component. Now, I didn't do that latter optimization, because it would require some more coding, but especially looking at "builtin-pack-objects.c", we really don't even want the whole pathname, we really would be better off with the list of path components. Why? We use that name for two things: - add_preferred_base_object(), which actually _wants_ to traverse the path, and now does it by looking for '/' characters! - for 'name_hash()', which only cares about the last 16 characters of a name, so again, generating the full name seems to be just unnecessary work. Anyway, so I didn't look any closer at those things, but it did convince me that the "show_object()" calling convention was crazy, and we're actually better off doing _less_ in list-objects.c, and giving people access to the internal data structures so that they can decide whether they want to generate a path-name or not. This patch does that, and then for people who did use the name (even if they might do something more clever in the future), it just does the straightforward "name = path_name(path, component); .. free(name);" thing. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering

2009-04-13T00:28:31Z

Here's a less trivial thing, and slightly more dubious one. I was looking at that "struct object_array objects", and wondering why we do that. I have honestly totally forgotten. Why not just call the "show()" function as we encounter the objects? Rather than add the objects to the object_array, and then at the very end going through the array and doing a 'show' on all, just do things more incrementally. Now, there are possible downsides to this: - the "buffer using object_array" _can_ in theory result in at least better I-cache usage (two tight loops rather than one more spread out one). I don't think this is a real issue, but in theory.. - this _does_ change the order of the objects printed. Instead of doing a "process_tree(revs, commit->tree, &objects, NULL, "");" in the loop over the commits (which puts all the root trees _first_ in the object list, this patch just adds them to the list of pending objects, and then we'll traverse them in that order (and thus show each root tree object together with the objects we discover under it) I _think_ the new ordering actually makes more sense, but the object ordering is actually a subtle thing when it comes to packing efficiency, so any change in order is going to have implications for packing. Good or bad, I dunno. - There may be some reason why we did it that odd way with the object array, that I have simply forgotten. Anyway, now that we don't buffer up the objects before showing them that may actually result in lower memory usage during that whole traverse_commit_list() phase. This is seriously not very deeply tested. It makes sense to me, it seems to pass all the tests, it looks ok, but... Does anybody remember why we did that "object_array" thing? It used to be an "object_list" a long long time ago, but got changed into the array due to better memory usage patterns (those linked lists of obejcts are horrible from a memory allocation standpoint). But I wonder why we didn't do this back then. Maybe there's a reason for it. Or maybe there _used_ to be a reason, and no longer is. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'cc/bisect-filter'

2009-04-12T23:46:40Z

* cc/bisect-filter: (21 commits) rev-list: add "int bisect_show_flags" in "struct rev_list_info" rev-list: remove last static vars used in "show_commit" list-objects: add "void *data" parameter to show functions bisect--helper: string output variables together with "&&" rev-list: pass "int flags" as last argument of "show_bisect_vars" t6030: test bisecting with paths bisect: use "bisect--helper" and remove "filter_skipped" function bisect: implement "read_bisect_paths" to read paths in "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_NAMES" bisect--helper: implement "git bisect--helper" bisect: use the new generic "sha1_pos" function to lookup sha1 rev-list: call new "filter_skip" function patch-ids: use the new generic "sha1_pos" function to lookup sha1 sha1-lookup: add new "sha1_pos" function to efficiently lookup sha1 rev-list: pass "revs" to "show_bisect_vars" rev-list: make "show_bisect_vars" non static rev-list: move code to show bisect vars into its own function rev-list: move bisect related code into its own file rev-list: make "bisect_list" variable local to "cmd_rev_list" refs: add "for_each_ref_in" function to refactor "for_each_*_ref" functions quote: add "sq_dequote_to_argv" to put unwrapped args in an argv array ...

Merge branch 'maint'

2009-04-12T23:01:25Z

* maint: GIT 1.6.2.3 State the effect of filter-branch on graft explicitly process_{tree,blob}: Remove useless xstrdup calls Conflicts: GIT-VERSION-GEN

Merge branch 'maint-1.6.1' into maint

2009-04-12T22:34:53Z

* maint-1.6.1: State the effect of filter-branch on graft explicitly process_{tree,blob}: Remove useless xstrdup calls

Merge branch 'maint-1.6.0' into maint-1.6.1

2009-04-12T22:20:29Z

* maint-1.6.0: State the effect of filter-branch on graft explicitly process_{tree,blob}: Remove useless xstrdup calls

process_{tree,blob}: Remove useless xstrdup calls

2009-04-12T21:30:31Z

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > > The name of the processed object was duplicated for passing it to > add_object(), but that already calls path_name, which allocates a new > string anyway. So the memory allocated by the xstrdup calls just went > nowhere, leaking memory. Ack, ack. There's another easy 5% or so for the built-in object walker: once we've created the hash from the name, the name isn't interesting any more, and so something trivial like this can help a bit. Does it matter? Probably not on its own. But a few more memory saving tricks and it might all make a difference. Linus Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Update delta compression message to be less misleading

2009-04-12T05:21:59Z

In the case of a small repository, pack-objects is smart enough to not start more threads than necessary. However, the output to the user always reports the value of the pack.threads configuration and not the real number of threads to be used. Signed-off-by: Dan McGee Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano