Thomas Rast <tr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The existing code passed revs->dense_combined_merges along revs itself > into the combine-diff functions, which is rather redundant. Remove > the 'dense' argument until much further down the callchain to simplify > callers. It was not apparent that the changes to diff_tree_combined_merge() was correct without looking at both of its callsites, but one passes the .dense_combined_merges member, and the other in submodules always gives true, which you covered here: > Note that while the caller in submodule.c needs to do extra work now, > the next commit will simplify this to a single setting again. > diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c > index c3a61e7..0499de6 100644 > --- a/submodule.c > +++ b/submodule.c > @@ -482,10 +482,13 @@ static void find_unpushed_submodule_commits(struct commit *commit, > struct rev_info rev; > > init_revisions(&rev, NULL); > + rev.ignore_merges = 0; > + rev.combined_merges = 1; > + rev.dense_combined_merges = 1; > rev.diffopt.output_format |= DIFF_FORMAT_CALLBACK; > rev.diffopt.format_callback = collect_submodules_from_diff; > rev.diffopt.format_callback_data = needs_pushing; > - diff_tree_combined_merge(commit, 1, &rev); > + diff_tree_combined_merge(commit, &rev); > } I briefly wondered if there can be any unwanted side effects in this particular codepath that is caused by setting rev.combined_merges which was not set in the original code, but seeing that this &rev is not used for anything other than diff_tree_combined_merge(), it should be OK. Also I wondered if this is leaking whatever in the &rev structure, but in this call I think rev is used only for its embedded diffopt in a way that does not leak anything, so it seems to be OK, but I'd appreciate if submodule folks can double check. Thanks. -- 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