On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Putting filter_opts in index_state feels like a bad design. Iterator >> information should be separated from the iterated object, so that two >> callers can walk through the same index without stepping on each other >> (I'm not talking about multithreading, a caller may walk a bit, then >> the other caller starts walking, then the former caller resumes >> walking again in a call chain). > > Yes, you're right. We need the filter_opts to see what part of the > index has been loaded [1] and which part has been skipped, but it > shouldn't be used for filtering in the for_each_index_entry function. > > I think there should be two versions of the for_each_index_entry > function then, where the for_each_index_entry function would behave the > same way as the for_each_index_entry_filtered function with the > filter_opts parameter set to NULL: > for_each_index_entry_filtered(struct index_state *, each_cache_entry_fn, void *cb_data, struct filter_opts *) > for_each_index_entry(struct index_state *, each_cache_entry_fn, void *cb_data) > > Both of them then should call index_change_filter_opts to make sure all > the entries that are needed are loaded in the in-memory format. > > Does that make sense? Hmm.. I was confused actually (documentation on the api would help greatly). If you already filter at load time, I don't think you need to match again. The caller asked for filter and it should know what's in there so for_each_index_entry just goes through all entries without extra match_pathspec. Or is that what next_index_entry for? match_pathspec function could be expensive when glob is involved. If the caller wants extra matching, it could do inside the callback function. It seems you could change the filter with index_change_filter_opts. In v5 the index will be reloaded. What happens when some index entries area already modified? Do we start to have read-only index "views" and one read-write view? If partial views are always read-only, perhaps we just allow the user to create a new index_state (or view) with new filter and destroy the old one. We don't have to care about changing or separating filter in that case because the view is the iterator. I wanted to have a tree-based iterator api, but that seems incompatible with pre-v5 (or at least adds some overhead on pre-v5 to rebuild the tree structure). It looks like using pathspec to build a list of entries, as you did, is a good way to take advantage of tree-based v5 while maintaining code compatibility with pre-v5. By the way with tree structure, you could use tree_entry_interesting in read_index_filtered_v5. I think it's more efficient than match_pathspec. I'm still studying the code. Some of what I wrote here may be totally wrong due to my lack of understanding. I'll get back to you later if I find something else. > [1] That is only important for the new index-v5 file format, which can > be loaded partially. The filter_opts could always be set to NULL, > as the whole index is always loaded anyway. -- Duy -- 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