Hi Stefan,
On 01/10/15 02:54, Stefan Beller wrote:
[snip]
While skimming the interdiff for this series, ...
> diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
> index df84985..28048a7 100644
> --- a/run-command.c
> +++ b/run-command.c
> @@ -863,12 +863,13 @@ struct parallel_processes {
>
> get_next_task_fn get_next_task;
> start_failure_fn start_failure;
> - return_value_fn return_value;
> + task_finished_fn task_finished;
>
> struct {
> unsigned in_use : 1;
> struct child_process process;
> struct strbuf err;
> + void *data;
> } *children;
> /*
> * The struct pollfd is logically part of *children,
> @@ -882,9 +883,10 @@ struct parallel_processes {
> struct strbuf buffered_output; /* of finished children */
> } parallel_processes_struct;
>
> -static int default_start_failure(void *data,
> - struct child_process *cp,
> - struct strbuf *err)
> +static int default_start_failure(struct child_process *cp,
> + struct strbuf *err,
> + void *pp_cb,
> + void *pp_task_cb)
> {
> int i;
>
> @@ -895,10 +897,11 @@ static int default_start_failure(void *data,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int default_return_value(void *data,
> - struct child_process *cp,
> - struct strbuf *err,
> - int result)
> +static int default_task_finished(int result,
> + struct child_process *cp,
> + struct strbuf *err,
> + void *pp_cb,
> + void *pp_task_cb)
> {
> int i;
>
> @@ -930,10 +933,11 @@ static void handle_children_on_signal(int signo)
> raise(signo);
> }
>
> -static struct parallel_processes *pp_init(int n, void *data,
> +static struct parallel_processes *pp_init(int n,
> get_next_task_fn get_next_task,
> start_failure_fn start_failure,
> - return_value_fn return_value)
> + task_finished_fn task_finished,
> + void *data)
> {
> int i;
> struct parallel_processes *pp = ¶llel_processes_struct;
> @@ -948,7 +952,7 @@ static struct parallel_processes *pp_init(int n, void *data,
> pp->get_next_task = get_next_task;
>
> pp->start_failure = start_failure ? start_failure : default_start_failure;
> - pp->return_value = return_value ? return_value : default_return_value;
> + pp->task_finished = task_finished ? task_finished : default_task_finished;
>
> pp->nr_processes = 0;
> pp->output_owner = 0;
> @@ -1006,15 +1010,17 @@ static int pp_start_one(struct parallel_processes *pp)
> if (i == pp->max_processes)
> die("BUG: bookkeeping is hard");
>
> - if (!pp->get_next_task(pp->data,
> + if (!pp->get_next_task(&pp->children[i].data,
> &pp->children[i].process,
> - &pp->children[i].err))
> + &pp->children[i].err,
> + pp->data))
> return 1;
... the above hunk caught my eye. I don't know that it matters that
much, but since you have reordered parameters on some functions, should
pp->get_next_task() take the 'task_cb' as the last parameter, rather than
the first?
I have not looked at the final result yet (just the interdiff), so please
just ignore the above if I've missed something obvious. :-D
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
--
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