On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 12:15:06PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 16:06 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > pathcmp() makes sure that all paths in pgp have a match in cpgp, > > > but not > > > vice-versa. Check the number of paths, too. > > > > This looks fine. But looking at it made we a nervous about cpgp->id. > > We > > only calculate that in pgcmp() (and just for mpp, not cmpp) and in > > disassemble_map(). But we clearly can have pathgroup changes after > > that, > > as the last patch has shown. To be safe, we should either skip the > > whole > > pgp->id thing (it's not a huge time savings) or recalculate it for > > all > > of cmpp's path groups before we start the loops in pgcmp(). > > Agreed. Like before, I am wondering if we should drop pgp->id in 0.11.0 > already or postpone. > > IMO my patch is a valid fix for a minor issue which needs redesign in a > future release. Yep. Like I said, your patch looks fine. I just noticed the gpg->id issue while looking at it. -Ben > > Martin
