git/split-index.c, branch v2.18.2

split-index: convert struct split_index to object_id

2018-05-02T04:59:50Z

Convert the base_sha1 member of struct split_index to use struct object_id and rename it base_oid. Include cache.h to make the structure visible. Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'bw/c-plus-plus'

2018-03-06T22:54:07Z

Avoid using identifiers that clash with C++ keywords. Even though it is not a goal to compile Git with C++ compilers, changes like this help use of code analysis tools that targets C++ on our codebase. * bw/c-plus-plus: (37 commits) replace: rename 'new' variables trailer: rename 'template' variables tempfile: rename 'template' variables wrapper: rename 'template' variables environment: rename 'namespace' variables diff: rename 'template' variables environment: rename 'template' variables init-db: rename 'template' variables unpack-trees: rename 'new' variables trailer: rename 'new' variables submodule: rename 'new' variables split-index: rename 'new' variables remote: rename 'new' variables ref-filter: rename 'new' variables read-cache: rename 'new' variables line-log: rename 'new' variables imap-send: rename 'new' variables http: rename 'new' variables entry: rename 'new' variables diffcore-delta: rename 'new' variables ...

split-index: rename 'new' variables

2018-02-22T18:08:05Z

Rename C++ keyword in order to bring the codebase closer to being able to be compiled with a C++ compiler. Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

split-index: don't write cache tree with null oid entries

2018-01-19T18:36:39Z

In a96d3cc3f6 ("cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1", 2017-04-21) we made sure that broken cache entries do not get propagated to new trees. Part of that was making sure not to re-use an existing cache tree that includes a null oid. It did so by dropping the cache tree in 'do_write_index()' if one of the entries contains a null oid. In split index mode however, there are two invocations to 'do_write_index()', one for the shared index and one for the split index. The cache tree is only written once, to the split index. As we only loop through the elements that are effectively being written by the current invocation, that may not include the entry with a null oid in the split index (when it is already written to the shared index), where we write the cache tree. Therefore in split index mode we may still end up writing the cache tree, even though there is an entry with a null oid in the index. Fix this by checking for null oids in prepare_to_write_split_index, where we loop the entries of the shared index as well as the entries for the split index. This fixes t7009 with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX. Also add a new test that's more specifically showing the problem. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'ab/free-and-null'

2017-06-24T21:28:41Z

A common pattern to free a piece of memory and assign NULL to the pointer that used to point at it has been replaced with a new FREE_AND_NULL() macro. * ab/free-and-null: *.[ch] refactoring: make use of the FREE_AND_NULL() macro coccinelle: make use of the "expression" FREE_AND_NULL() rule coccinelle: add a rule to make "expression" code use FREE_AND_NULL() coccinelle: make use of the "type" FREE_AND_NULL() rule coccinelle: add a rule to make "type" code use FREE_AND_NULL() git-compat-util: add a FREE_AND_NULL() wrapper around free(ptr); ptr = NULL

Revert "split-index: add and use unshare_split_index()"

2017-06-24T19:02:39Z

This reverts commit f9d7abec2ad2f9eb3d8873169cc28c34273df082; see public-inbox.org/git/CAP8UFD0bOfzY-_hBDKddOcJdPUpP2KEVaX_SrCgvAMYAHtseiQ@mail.gmail.com

*.[ch] refactoring: make use of the FREE_AND_NULL() macro

2017-06-16T19:44:09Z

Replace occurrences of `free(ptr); ptr = NULL` which weren't caught by the coccinelle rule. These fall into two categories: - free/NULL assignments one after the other which coccinelle all put on one line, which is functionally equivalent code, but very ugly. - manually spotted occurrences where the NULL assignment isn't right after the free() call. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

split-index: add and use unshare_split_index()

2017-05-08T01:50:20Z

When split-index is being used, we have two cache_entry arrays in index_state->cache[] and index_state->split_index->base->cache[]. index_state->cache[] may share the same entries with base->cache[] so we can quickly determine what entries are shared. This makes memory management tricky, we can't free base->cache[] until we know index_state->cache[] does not point to any of those entries. unshare_split_index() is added for this purpose, to find shared entries and either duplicate them in index_state->cache[], or discard them. Either way it should be safe to free base->cache[] after unshare_split_index(). Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

split-index: add {add,remove}_split_index() functions

2017-03-01T21:24:21Z

Also use the functions in cmd_update_index() in builtin/update-index.c. These functions will be used in a following commit to tweak our use of the split-index feature depending on the setting of a configuration variable. Signed-off-by: Christian Couder Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

split-index: s/eith/with/ typo fix

2016-11-01T18:48:02Z

Signed-off-by: Christian Couder Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano