Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Hmm, I would have expected that the basic flow would become >> >> for each paths to be processed: >> convert-to-worktree to buf >> if not delayed: >> do the caller's thing to use buf >> else: >> remember path >> >> for each delayed paths: >> ensure filter process finished processing for path >> fetch the thing to buf from the process >> do the caller's thing to use buf >> >> and that would make quite a lot of sense. However, what is actually >> implemented is a bit disappointing from that point of view. While >> its first part is the same as above, the latter part instead does: >> >> for each delayed paths: >> checkout the path >> ... > > I am not sure I can follow you here. > ... > I implemented the "checkout_delayed_entries" function in v1 because > it solved the problem with minimal changes in the existing code. Our previous > discussion made me think that this is the preferred way: > > I do not think we want to see such a rewrite all over the > codepaths. It might be OK to add such a "these entries are known > to be delayed" list in struct checkout so that the above becomes > more like this: > > for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++) > checkout_entry(active_cache[i], state, NULL); > + checkout_entry_finish(state); > > That is, addition of a single "some of the checkout_entry() calls > done so far might have been lazy, and I'll give them a chance to > clean up" might be palatable. Anything more than that on the > caller side is not. But that is apples-and-oranges comparision, no? The old discussion assumes there is no "caller's thing to use buf" other than "checkout to the working tree", which is why the function its main loop calls is "checkout_entry()" and the caller does not see the contents of the filtered blob at all. In that context, checkout_entry_finish() that equally does not let the caller see the contents of the filtered blob is quite appropriate.