On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:49:17PM +0000, Gargi Sharma wrote: > > Sort of a side note, but seeing these two list pointers together makes > > me wonder what we should do with the list created by the "next" pointer. > > It seems like there are three options: > > > > 1. Convert it to "struct list_head", too, for consistency. > > > > 2. Leave it as-is. We never delete from the list nor do any fancy > > manipulation, so it doesn't benefit from the reusable code. > > > > 3. I wonder if we could drop it entirely, and just keep a single list > > of packs, ordered by mru. I'm not sure if anybody actually cares > > about accessing them in the "original" order. That order is > > reverse-chronological (by prepare_packed_git()), but I think that > > was mostly out of a sense that recent packs would be accessed more > > than older ones (but having a real mru strategy replaces that > > anyway). > > > > What do you think? > I think in the long run, it'll be easier if there is only a single > list of packs given > that no one needs to access the list in order. Yeah, it's that "given..." that makes me just a little nervous that I'm missing something. > If we go down road 1/3, would it be better if I sent an entirely > different patch or > a patch series with patch 1 as removing mru[.ch] and patch 2 as removing > next pointer from the struct? I think you could do it as a 2-patch series like that, or you could send the first patch now (since I think it stands on its own merits) and do the other one later on top. > > This matches the original code, which did the clear/re-create, resetting > > the mru to the "original" pack order. But I do wonder if that's actually > > necessary. Could we skip that and just add any new packs to the list? > > But if we do not clear the older entries from the list, wouldn't there be a > problem when you access packed_git_mru->next, since that will be populated > instead of being empty? Or am I misunderstanding something here? What I mean is that instead of clearing and re-adding all of the packs (including any new ones we picked up by rescanning the directory), we would _just_ add new ones to the list. So I think we'd scrap this whole "set up the mru" preparation here and just teach install_packed_git() to add the new pack to the MRU list. -Peff
