On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 07:41:44PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> > If we start to convert those, there's a
> > little bit of a rabbit hole, but it's actually not too bad.
>
> You don't need to crawl in just for quick_has_loose(), but eventually
> everything has to be converted. It seems a bit
Am 05.12.2018 um 09:15 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:51:36AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>>> This
>>> function is easily converted to struct object_id, though, as its single
>>> caller can pass one on -- this makes the copy unnecessary.
>>
>> If you mean modifying
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:51:36AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > This
> > function is easily converted to struct object_id, though, as its single
> > caller can pass one on -- this makes the copy unnecessary.
>
> If you mean modifying sha1_loose_object_info() to take an oid, then
> sure, I agree
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 07:02:17AM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> > I actually wrote it that way initially, but doing the hashcpy() in the
> > caller is a bit more awkward. My thought was to punt on that until the
> > rest of the surrounding code starts handling oids.
>
> The level of awkwardness
Am 05.12.2018 um 05:46 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:45:13PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
>
>>> The comment in the context there is warning callers to remember to load
>>> the cache first. Now that we have individual caches, might it make sense
>>> to change the interface a bit,
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:45:13PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> > The comment in the context there is warning callers to remember to load
> > the cache first. Now that we have individual caches, might it make sense
> > to change the interface a bit, and make these members private. I.e.,
> >
Am 03.12.2018 um 23:04 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 11:52:50AM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
>
>>> And for mu.git, a ~20k object repo:
>>>
>>> Test origin/master
>>> peff/jk/loose-cache avar/check-collisions-config
>>>
On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 11:52:50AM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> > And for mu.git, a ~20k object repo:
> >
> > Test origin/master
> > peff/jk/loose-cache avar/check-collisions-config
> >
> >
Am 13.11.2018 um 11:02 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 12 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>
>>> I get:
>>>
>>> Test origin/master
>>> peff/jk/loose-cache
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:48:57PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> > +static int quick_has_loose(struct repository *r,
> > + const unsigned char *sha1)
> > +{
> > + int subdir_nr = sha1[0];
> > + struct object_id oid;
> > + struct object_directory *odb;
> > +
> > +
Am 12.11.2018 um 15:54 schrieb Jeff King:
> diff --git a/sha1-file.c b/sha1-file.c
> index 4aae716a37..e53da0b701 100644
> --- a/sha1-file.c
> +++ b/sha1-file.c
> @@ -921,6 +921,24 @@ static int open_sha1_file(struct repository *r,
> return -1;
> }
>
> +static int quick_has_loose(struct
Am 13.11.2018 um 11:02 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
> So here's the same test not against NFS, but the local ext4 fs (CO7;
> Linux 3.10) for sha1collisiondetection.git:
>
> Test origin/master
> peff/jk/loose-cache
On Mon, Nov 12 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 12 2018, Jeff King wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 05:01:02PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>
> There's some obvious hand-waving in the paragraphs
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:21:51AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> No, but they don't even really need to be actual objects. So I suspect
> something like:
>
> git init
> for i in $(seq 256); do
> i=$(printf %02x $i)
> mkdir -p .git/objects/$i
> for j in $(seq --format=%038g 1000); do
On Mon, Nov 12 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12 2018, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 05:01:02PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>
>>> > There's some obvious hand-waving in the paragraphs above. I would love
>>> > it if somebody with an NFS system could
On Mon, Nov 12 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 05:01:02PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> > There's some obvious hand-waving in the paragraphs above. I would love
>> > it if somebody with an NFS system could do some before/after timings
>> > with various numbers of
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 05:01:02PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > There's some obvious hand-waving in the paragraphs above. I would love
> > it if somebody with an NFS system could do some before/after timings
> > with various numbers of loose objects, to get a sense of where the
> >
On Mon, Nov 12 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> In cases where we expect to ask has_sha1_file() about a lot of objects
> that we are not likely to have (e.g., during fetch negotiation), we
> already use OBJECT_INFO_QUICK to sacrifice accuracy (due to racing with
> a simultaneous write or repack) for
On 11/12/2018 9:54 AM, Jeff King wrote:
In cases where we expect to ask has_sha1_file() about a lot of objects
that we are not likely to have (e.g., during fetch negotiation), we
already use OBJECT_INFO_QUICK to sacrifice accuracy (due to racing with
a simultaneous write or repack) for speed (we
In cases where we expect to ask has_sha1_file() about a lot of objects
that we are not likely to have (e.g., during fetch negotiation), we
already use OBJECT_INFO_QUICK to sacrifice accuracy (due to racing with
a simultaneous write or repack) for speed (we avoid re-scanning the pack
directory).
20 matches
Mail list logo
