On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:44:07AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 5/1/2013 22:34, schrieb Jeff King:
> > struct object *lookup_object(const unsigned char *sha1)
> > {
> > - unsigned int i;
> > + unsigned int i, first;
> > struct object *obj;
> >
> > if (!obj_hash)
> > return NULL;
> >
> > - i = hashtable_index(sha1);
> > + first = i = hashtable_index(sha1);
> > while ((obj = obj_hash[i]) != NULL) {
> > if (!hashcmp(sha1, obj->sha1))
> > break;
> > @@ -85,6 +85,11 @@ struct object *lookup_object(const unsigned char *sha1)
> > if (i == obj_hash_size)
> > i = 0;
> > }
> > + if (obj && i != first) {
> > + struct object *tmp = obj_hash[i];
> > + obj_hash[i] = obj_hash[first];
> > + obj_hash[first] = tmp;
> > + }
> > return obj;
> > }
>
> This is one of the places where I think the code does not speak for itself
> and a comment is warranted: The new if statement is not about correctness,
> but about optimization:
I figured the lengthy description in the commit message would be
sufficient, but I don't mind adding something like your suggestion to
point readers of the code in the right direction when they see it.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html