Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] index_has_changes(): avoid assuming operating on the_index

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Modify index_has_changes() to take a struct istate* instead of just
> operating on the_index.  This is only a partial conversion, though,
> because we call do_diff_cache() which implicitly assumes work is to be
> done on the_index.  Ongoing work is being done elsewhere to do the
> remainder of the conversion, and thus is not duplicated here.  Instead,
> a simple check is put in place until that work is complete.

Yeah, that is an unfortunate but necessary compromise until we
create do_diff_index() that can take an istate, and optionally turn
do_diff_cache() into

    #define do_diff_cache(...) do_diff_index(&the_index, ...)

if there are many callers that want to work on the default in-core
istate.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux