On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 12:34:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > +static struct submodule_hash_entry *alloc_submodule_hash_entry(
> > + const char *submodule, struct ref_store *refs)
> > +{
> > + size_t len = strlen(submodule);
> > + struct submodule_hash_entry *entry = malloc(sizeof(*entry) + len + 1);
>
> I think this (and the later memcpy) is what FLEX_ALLOC_MEM() was
> invented for.
Yes, it was. Though since the length comes from a strlen() call, it can
actually use the _STR variant, like:
FLEX_ALLOC_STR(entry, submodule, submodule);
Besides being shorter, this does integer-overflow checks on the final
length.
> > @@ -1373,16 +1405,17 @@ void base_ref_store_init(struct ref_store *refs,
> > die("BUG: main_ref_store initialized twice");
> >
> > refs->submodule = "";
> > - refs->next = NULL;
> > main_ref_store = refs;
> > } else {
> > - if (lookup_ref_store(submodule))
> > + refs->submodule = xstrdup(submodule);
> > +
> > + if (!submodule_ref_stores.tablesize)
> > + hashmap_init(&submodule_ref_stores, submodule_hash_cmp, 20);
>
> Makes me wonder what "20" stands for. Perhaps the caller should be
> allowed to say "I do not quite care what initial size is" by passing
> 0 or some equally but more clealy meaningless value (which of course
> would be outside the scope of this series).
I think this is what "0" already does (grep for HASHMAP_INITIAL_SIZE).
In fact, that constant is 64. The 20 we pass in goes through some magic
load-factor computation and ends up as 25. That being smaller than the
INITIAL_SIZE constant, I believe that we end up allocating 64 entries
either way (that's just from reading the code, though; I didn't run it
to double check).
-Peff