"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The current --topo-order algorithm requires walking all
> reachable commits up front, topo-sorting them, all before
> outputting the first value. This patch introduces a new
> algorithm which uses stored generation numbers to
> incrementally walk in topo-order, outputting commits as
> we go. This can dramatically reduce the computation time
> to write a fixed number of commits, such as when limiting
> with "-n <N>" or filling the first page of a pager.
>
> When running a command like 'git rev-list --topo-order HEAD',
> Git performed the following steps:
>
> 1. Run limit_list(), which parses all reachable commits,
> adds them to a linked list, and distributes UNINTERESTING
> flags. If all unprocessed commits are UNINTERESTING, then
> it may terminate without walking all reachable commits.
> This does not occur if we do not specify UNINTERESTING
> commits.
>
> 2. Run sort_in_topological_order(), which is an implementation
> of Kahn's algorithm. It first iterates through the entire
> set of important commits and computes the in-degree of each
> (plus one, as we use 'zero' as a special value here). Then,
> we walk the commits in priority order, adding them to the
> priority queue if and only if their in-degree is one. As
> we remove commits from this priority queue, we decrement the
> in-degree of their parents.
Because in-degree has very specific defined meaning of number of
children, i.e. the number of _incoming_ edges, I would say "if and only
if their in-degree-plus-one is one". It is more exact, even if it looks
a bit funny.
> 3. While we are peeling commits for output, get_revision_1()
> uses pop_commit on the full list of commits computed by
> sort_in_topological_order().
All right, so those are separate steps (separate walks): prepare and
parse commits, topologically sort list of commits from previous step,
output sorted list of commits from previous step.
> In the new algorithm, these three steps correspond to three
> different commit walks. We run these walks simultaneously,
> and advance each only as far as necessary to satisfy the
> requirements of the 'higher order' walk.
What does 'higher order' walk means: steps 3, 2, 1, in this order,
i.e. output being the highest order, or something different?
Sidenote: the new algorithm looks a bit like Unix pipeline, where each
step of pipeline does not output much more than next step needs /
requests.
> We know when we can
> pause each walk by using generation numbers from the commit-
> graph feature.
Do I understand it correctly that this is mainly used in Kahn's
algorithm to find out through the negative-cut index of generation
number which commits in the to-be-sorted list cannot have an in-degree
of zero (or otherise cannot be next commit to be shown in output)?
> Recall that the generation number of a commit satisfies:
>
> * If the commit has at least one parent, then the generation
> number is one more than the maximum generation number among
> its parents.
>
> * If the commit has no parent, then the generation number is one.
>
> There are two special generation numbers:
>
> * GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY: this value is 0xffffffff and
> indicates that the commit is not stored in the commit-graph and
> the generation number was not previously calculated.
>
> * GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO: this value (0) is a special indicator
> to say that the commit-graph was generated by a version of Git
> that does not compute generation numbers (such as v2.18.0).
>
> Since we use generation_numbers_enabled() before using the new
> algorithm, we do not need to worry about GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO.
> However, the existence of GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY implies the
> following weaker statement than the usual we expect from
> generation numbers:
>
> If A and B are commits with generation numbers gen(A) and
> gen(B) and gen(A) < gen(B), then A cannot reach B.
>
> Thus, we will walk in each of our stages until the "maximum
> unexpanded generation number" is strictly lower than the
> generation number of a commit we are about to use.
And this "maximum unexpanded generation number" must be greater or equal
to 1, thanks to assuming generation_numbers_enabled().
Let's start by writing down the original version of the Kahn's algorith
(which is not the only way to calculate topological ordering; another
method is to use depth-first searches).
L ← Empty list that will contain the sorted elements
S ← Set of all nodes with no incoming edge
while S is non-empty do
remove a node n from S
add n to tail of L
for each node m with an edge e from n to m do
remove edge e from the graph
if m has no other incoming edges then
insert m into S
if graph has edges then
return error _(graph has at least one cycle)_
else
return L _(a topologically sorted order)_
In the case of Git, we display only commits reachable from the starting
commits, so only those starting commits can have no incoming edge, by
the definition of the reachable commit (note that some starting commits
can be reachable from other starting commits).
Note that in Git by construction we cannot have cycles in the objects
graph, and that 'remove edge e [= n -> m] from the graph' simply means
decreasing the [effective] in-degree of node m.
> The walks are as follows:
>
> 1. EXPLORE: using the explore_queue priority queue (ordered by
> maximizing the generation number), parse each reachable
> commit until all commits in the queue have generation
> number strictly lower than needed. During this walk, update
> the UNINTERESTING flags as necessary.
All right, that looks sensible. Parse commits and update the
UNINTERESTING flags only up to what might be needed.
Though I would add for each walk what are post-conditions, i.e. what
requirements list of returned commits does fullfill. In the case of the
EXPLORE walk it would be that commits are in the "reachable from start
commts" set, parsed and not UNINTERESTING. And that there are all such
commits there with generation number greater or equal if needed (and
their parents).
Wouldn't this though make the output always start at the commit with
maximal generation number (such commit or commits would need to have an
in-degree of zero, i.e. no incoming edges), instead of whatever order is
requested (if date order contradicts generation number order) or in the
command line arguments order?
> 2. INDEGREE: using the indegree_queue priority queue (ordered
> by maximizing the generation number), add one to the in-
> degree of each parent for each commit that is walked. Since
> we walk in order of decreasing generation number, we know
> that discovering an in-degree value of 0 means the value for
> that commit was not initialized, so should be initialized to
> two. (Recall that in-degree value "1" is what we use to say a
> commit is ready for output.)
The post-condition is that all returned commits have their in-degree
plus one calculated.
Mixing actual in-degree (number of incoming edges, zero means no
incoming edge and candidate for the next commit in topological order),
and details of implementation (using value of zero for uninitialized,
and thus actually storing in-degree plus one) makes this description a
bit hard to follow.
Note that the additional complication is that if commits have generation
number INFINITY, then we cannot say anything about reachability among
commits with this special generation number. That means that until we
process all commits with generation number INFINITY, we don't know which
ones have no incoming edges (a real in-degree of zero). If they are not
INFINITY, the stronger version of the reachability condition for
generation number holds, and thus we know that if we pop the commit and
it has uninitialized in-degree and generation number not INFINITY, then
it has no-incoming edges (in-degree of zero).
That does not matter much, but for the fact that before outputting list
of commits / returning from the function we need to ensure that all out
commits have defined in-degree value. All that have in-degree undefined
when indegree_queue is empty, because of reachability and generation
numbers constraints, actually have an in-degree of zero (no incoming
edges).
> As we iterate the parents of a
> commit during this walk, ensure the EXPLORE walk has walked
> beyond their generation numbers.
All right. looks sensible from the point of view of trying to do
streaming of sorted commits.
>
> 3. TOPO: using the topo_queue priority queue (ordered based on
> the sort_order given, which could be commit-date, author-
> date, or typical topo-order which treats the queue as a LIFO
> stack), remove a commit from the queue and decrement the
> in-degree of each parent. If a parent has an in-degree of
> one, then we add it to the topo_queue. Before we decrement
> the in-degree, however, ensure the INDEGREE walk has walked
> beyond that generation number.
This description missed an important constraint, namely that all commits
in the topo_order queue have real in-degree of zero, i.e. no incoming
edges. The topo_order queue is set S in the Kahn's algorithm.
Also, we need to know how to populate the topo_queue at start with at
least one commit. How it is initially populated? That is very
important question.
>
> The implementations of these walks are in the following methods:
>
> * explore_walk_step and explore_to_depth
> * indegree_walk_step and compute_indegrees_to_depth
> * next_topo_commit and expand_topo_walk
All right, one one hand: good calling convention. On the other hand:
why the difference in naming?
>
> These methods have some patterns that may seem strange at first,
> but they are probably carry-overs from their equivalents in
> limit_list and sort_in_topological_order.
>
> One thing that is missing from this implementation is a proper
> way to stop walking when the entire queue is UNINTERESTING, so
> this implementation is not enabled by comparisions, such as in
> 'git rev-list --topo-order A..B'. This can be updated in the
> future.
All right, lets start with easier step.
>
> In my local testing, I used the following Git commands on the
> Linux repository in three modes: HEAD~1 with no commit-graph,
> HEAD~1 with a commit-graph, and HEAD with a commit-graph. This
> allows comparing the benefits we get from parsing commits from
> the commit-graph and then again the benefits we get by
> restricting the set of commits we walk.
>
> Test: git rev-list --topo-order -100 HEAD
> HEAD~1, no commit-graph: 6.80 s
> HEAD~1, w/ commit-graph: 0.77 s
> HEAD, w/ commit-graph: 0.02 s
>
> Test: git rev-list --topo-order -100 HEAD -- tools
> HEAD~1, no commit-graph: 9.63 s
> HEAD~1, w/ commit-graph: 6.06 s
> HEAD, w/ commit-graph: 0.06 s
>
> This speedup is due to a few things. First, the new generation-
> number-enabled algorithm walks commits on order of the number of
> results output (subject to some branching structure expectations).
> Since we limit to 100 results, we are running a query similar to
> filling a single page of results. Second, when specifying a path,
> we must parse the root tree object for each commit we walk. The
> previous benefits from the commit-graph are entirely from reading
> the commit-graph instead of parsing commits. Since we need to
> parse trees for the same number of commits as before, we slow
> down significantly from the non-path-based query.
>
> For the test above, I specifically selected a path that is changed
> frequently, including by merge commits. A less-frequently-changed
> path (such as 'README') has similar end-to-end time since we need
> to walk the same number of commits (before determining we do not
> have 100 hits). However, get the benefit that the output is
> presented to the user as it is discovered, much the same as a
> normal 'git log' command (no '--topo-order'). This is an improved
> user experience, even if the command has the same runtime.
First, do I understand it correctly that in first case the gains from
new algorithms are so slim because with commit-graph file and no path
limiting we don't hit repository anyway; we walk less commits, but
reading commit data from commit-graph file is fast/
Second, I wonder if there is some easy way to perform automatic latency
tests, i.e. how fast does Git show the first page of output...
> Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> object.h | 4 +-
> revision.c | 199 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> revision.h | 2 +
> 3 files changed, 197 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Daunting change to review.
> diff --git a/object.h b/object.h
> index 0feb90ae61..796792cb32 100644
> --- a/object.h
> +++ b/object.h
> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ struct object_array {
>
> /*
> * object flag allocation:
> - * revision.h: 0---------10 2526
> + * revision.h: 0---------10 25----28
> * fetch-pack.c: 01
> * negotiator/default.c: 2--5
> * walker.c: 0-2
> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ struct object_array {
> * builtin/show-branch.c: 0-------------------------------------------26
> * builtin/unpack-objects.c: 2021
> */
> -#define FLAG_BITS 27
> +#define FLAG_BITS 29
What are those two additional object flags needed for revision.h /
revision.c after this change?
Ah, those are TOPO_WALK_EXPLORED and TOPO_WALK_INDEGREE.
>
> /*
> * The object type is stored in 3 bits.
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index 36458265a0..472f3994e3 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include "argv-array.h"
> #include "commit-reach.h"
> #include "commit-graph.h"
> +#include "prio-queue.h"
>
> volatile show_early_output_fn_t show_early_output;
>
> @@ -2895,30 +2896,216 @@ static int mark_uninteresting(const struct object_id *oid,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -struct topo_walk_info {};
> +define_commit_slab(indegree_slab, int);
> +
> +struct topo_walk_info {
> + uint32_t min_generation;
> + struct prio_queue explore_queue;
> + struct prio_queue indegree_queue;
> + struct prio_queue topo_queue;
> + struct indegree_slab indegree;
All right.
> + struct author_date_slab author_date;
Why this slab is needed in topo_walk_info struct?
> +};
> +
> +static inline void test_flag_and_insert(struct prio_queue *q, struct commit *c, int flag)
> +{
> + if (c->object.flags & flag)
> + return;
> +
> + c->object.flags |= flag;
> + prio_queue_put(q, c);
> +}
This is an independent change, though I see that it is quite specific
(as opposed to quite generic prio_queue_peek() operation added earlier
in this series), so it does not make much sense as standalone change.
It inserts commit into priority queue only if it didn't have flags set,
and sets the flag (so we won't add it to the queue again, not without
unsetting the flag), am I correct?
> +
> +static void explore_walk_step(struct rev_info *revs)
> +{
> + struct topo_walk_info *info = revs->topo_walk_info;
> + struct commit_list *p;
> + struct commit *c = prio_queue_get(&info->explore_queue);
> +
> + if (!c)
> + return;
> +
> + if (parse_commit_gently(c, 1) < 0)
> + return;
All right, all commits taken out of explore_queue are parsed. This is
used to ensure that all commits qith generation number greater than some
set cutoff are parsed.
> +
> + if (revs->sort_order == REV_SORT_BY_AUTHOR_DATE)
> + record_author_date(&info->author_date, c);
> +
> + if (revs->max_age != -1 && (c->date < revs->max_age))
> + c->object.flags |= UNINTERESTING;
These two conditionals looks a bit strange to me; they are hardcoded
specific cases of query. But that might be just me...
> +
> + if (process_parents(revs, c, NULL, NULL) < 0)
> + return;
I see that we are using process_parents(), formerly i.e. before patch
5/7 add_parents_to_list(), with NULL 'list' parameter for the first
time.
> +
> + if (c->object.flags & UNINTERESTING)
> + mark_parents_uninteresting(c);
> +
> + for (p = c->parents; p; p = p->next)
> + test_flag_and_insert(&info->explore_queue, p->item, TOPO_WALK_EXPLORED);
Do we need to insert parents to the queue even if they were marked
UNINTERESTING?
I guess that we use test_flag_and_insert() instead of prio_queue_put()
to avoid duplicate entries in the queue. I think the queue is initially
populated with the starting commits, but those need not to be
unreachable from each other, and walking down parents we can encounter
starting commit already in the queue. Am I correct?
> +}
Let's compare this new function with the limit_list() used in the old
algorithm for --topo-order walk (and even now for A..B walks), or to be
more exact with the contents of the while loop.
1. limit_list() doesn't have the check if the commit exists, and
does not use parse_commit_gently(). Why the difference, i.e. where
revs->commits gets parsed, and why explore_walk_step() cannot rely on
this?
I get that the goal is to not have parse commits if not needed, so it
is good that it is moved to explore_walk_step().
2. limit_list() is also missing running record_author_date() when
sorting output by author date. I guess that explore_walk_step()
needs this because commit-graph file does not include this
information.
3. Handling of revs->max_age by marking commit as UNINTERESTING if
needed is the same in limit_list() and in explore_walk_step().
4. limit_list() but not explore_walk_step() handles revs->min_age near
the end pf the loop by terminating the loop. I guess for this case
we have revs->limited set, and we use old algorithm, isn't it?
Something to remember when adding A..B handling to new algorithm.
5. add_parents_to_list() / process_parents() is nearly the same in
limit_list() and in explore_walk_step(), but for the fact that the
new function doesn't use 'list' parameter.
6. Both limit_list() and explore_walk_step() use
mark_parents_uninteresting() on uninteresting commits.
However, limit_list() breaks out of the loop, and uses
interesting_cache with slop. I guess that those two facts are
connected, right?
7. Then explore_walk_step() inserts parents to the priority queue if
they are not present there already, with test_flag_and_insert(),
which rough equivalent in limit_list() would be using
commit_list_insert().
8. limit_list() has also some code for show_early_output, which I guess
explore_walk_step() does not need to handle.
> +
> +static void explore_to_depth(struct rev_info *revs,
> + uint32_t gen)
> +{
> + struct topo_walk_info *info = revs->topo_walk_info;
> + struct commit *c;
> + while ((c = prio_queue_peek(&info->explore_queue)) &&
> + c->generation >= gen)
I have originally thought that if we extract prio_queue_get() and
test_flag_and_insert() / prio_queue_put() out of explore_walk_step() and
put it into this loop, i.e. into the calling function, we could avoid
code duplication between explore_walk_step() and limit_list()... but I
guess that is impossible anyway.
> + explore_walk_step(revs);
> +}
Nice, tight, and easy to understand function. Though perhaps 'gen'
could be called 'gen_cutoff' or 'min_gen', or 'min_gen_cufott'.
> +
> +static void indegree_walk_step(struct rev_info *revs)
> +{
> + struct commit_list *p;
> + struct topo_walk_info *info = revs->topo_walk_info;
> + struct commit *c = prio_queue_get(&info->indegree_queue);
> +
> + if (!c)
> + return;
> +
> + if (parse_commit_gently(c, 1) < 0)
> + return;
All right, we need to parse commit 'c' to have its generation number,
and we need to do the same in explore_walk_step() because we walk
possibly unparsed parents.
> +
> + explore_to_depth(revs, c->generation);
If we walk everything up to current commit depth, then we have walked
all commits that can affect in-degree of current commit. Good.
> +
> + if (parse_commit_gently(c, 1) < 0)
> + return;
Why do we parse the same commit again???
> +
> + for (p = c->parents; p; p = p->next) {
> + struct commit *parent = p->item;
> + int *pi = indegree_slab_at(&info->indegree, parent);
Sidenote: I would call this 'indegree_plus_one', not 'indegree'. But
maybe I am too pedantic here.
> +
> + if (*pi)
> + (*pi)++;
If in-degree of parent is defined, then increase it.
> + else
> + *pi = 2;
If in-degree of parent is not defined, then it is first incoming edge,
and in-degree plus one is thus 2 (i.e. 1 + INDEGREE_ZERO).
> +
> + test_flag_and_insert(&info->indegree_queue, parent, TOPO_WALK_INDEGREE);
> +
> + if (revs->first_parent_only)
> + return;
> + }
This loop looks all right to me: we insert the parents if they do not
exist in the queue, and we handle --first-parent correctly.
> +}
> +
> +static void compute_indegrees_to_depth(struct rev_info *revs)
> +{
> + struct topo_walk_info *info = revs->topo_walk_info;
> + struct commit *c;
> + while ((c = prio_queue_peek(&info->indegree_queue)) &&
> + c->generation >= info->min_generation)
> + indegree_walk_step(revs);
> +}
All right, this looks correct. It is identical with explore_to_depth(),
but for the change of queue member of topo_walk_info and step function.
Sidenote: if C had true macros (higher-order functions), then it might
be worth encoding this structure in a macro. Preprocessor macros though
would make the code more obscure, not less.
>
> static void init_topo_walk(struct rev_info *revs)
> {
> struct topo_walk_info *info;
> + struct commit_list *list;
Hmmm, I wonder what do we need this 'list' for.
> revs->topo_walk_info = xmalloc(sizeof(struct topo_walk_info));
> info = revs->topo_walk_info;
> memset(info, 0, sizeof(struct topo_walk_info));
>
> - limit_list(revs);
> - sort_in_topological_order(&revs->commits, revs->sort_order);
> + init_indegree_slab(&info->indegree);
> + memset(&info->explore_queue, '\0', sizeof(info->explore_queue));
> + memset(&info->indegree_queue, '\0', sizeof(info->indegree_queue));
> + memset(&info->topo_queue, '\0', sizeof(info->topo_queue));
Why this memset uses '\0' as a filler value and not 0? The queues are
not strings.
> +
> + switch (revs->sort_order) {
> + default: /* REV_SORT_IN_GRAPH_ORDER */
> + info->topo_queue.compare = NULL;
> + break;
> + case REV_SORT_BY_COMMIT_DATE:
> + info->topo_queue.compare = compare_commits_by_commit_date;
> + break;
> + case REV_SORT_BY_AUTHOR_DATE:
> + init_author_date_slab(&info->author_date);
> + info->topo_queue.compare = compare_commits_by_author_date;
> + info->topo_queue.cb_data = &info->author_date;
> + break;
> + }
O.K., that are all possible values for revs->sort_order (all possible
values of the rev_sort_order enum).
> +
> + info->explore_queue.compare = compare_commits_by_gen_then_commit_date;
> + info->indegree_queue.compare = compare_commits_by_gen_then_commit_date;
All right, those lower level priority queues are sorted by generation
number (with commit date as tie breaker).
> +
> + info->min_generation = GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY;
> + for (list = revs->commits; list; list = list->next) {
This list loops over all starting commits, isn't it.
> + struct commit *c = list->item;
> + test_flag_and_insert(&info->explore_queue, c, TOPO_WALK_EXPLORED);
> + test_flag_and_insert(&info->indegree_queue, c, TOPO_WALK_INDEGREE);
> +
> + if (parse_commit_gently(c, 1))
> + continue;
Why do we insert commits that cannot be parsed to those two queues?
> + if (c->generation < info->min_generation)
> + info->min_generation = c->generation;
All right, we have parsed commit 'c' so we know its generation numbers.
> + }
Here all starting commits are inserted into both expore_queue (for
parsing and walk), and to indegree_queue (for in-degree calculations).
All right.
> +
> + for (list = revs->commits; list; list = list->next) {
> + struct commit *c = list->item;
> + *(indegree_slab_at(&info->indegree, c)) = 1;
> +
> + if (revs->sort_order == REV_SORT_BY_AUTHOR_DATE)
> + record_author_date(&info->author_date, c);
> + }
This is a separate loop to initialize and possibly record data in slabs
for indegree and author_date info.
I wonder why it is in a separate loop. Is it to make code cleaner, to
separate different concerns into separate loops?
> + compute_indegrees_to_depth(revs);
It looks a bit strange that depth is not passed as a parameter, but its
value is embedded inside revs structure, but I guess it is done this way
to keep it in sync.
Though it is a bit *inconsistent* to have explore_to_depth() having
'gen' parameter, but compute_indegrees_to_depth() not having it. There
is '_to_depth()' in a name, and there is no 'depth' parameter...
Here we have computed indegrees of all starting commits, walking the
commit graph if necessary.
> +
> + for (list = revs->commits; list; list = list->next) {
> + struct commit *c = list->item;
> +
> + if (*(indegree_slab_at(&info->indegree, c)) == 1)
> + prio_queue_put(&info->topo_queue, c);
> + }
And here we add all commits with no incoming edges, i.e. with real
in-degree of zero, and "indegree plus one" equal 1, or INDEGREE_ZERO.
This is the starting point of Kahn's algorithm (assuming that in-degrees
will be calculated correctly while running it). All right.
> +
> + /*
> + * This is unfortunate; the initial tips need to be shown
> + * in the order given from the revision traversal machinery.
> + */
> + if (revs->sort_order == REV_SORT_IN_GRAPH_ORDER)
> + prio_queue_reverse(&info->topo_queue);
Right, with REV_SORT_IN_GRAPH_ORDER the priority queue is actually a
stack, and access through this stack reverses the order of commits as it
was originally in the list (last commit was added last, and stack is
LIFO structure, last added element is retrieved first).
I think thet here some sort of complication with regards to
REV_SORT_IN_GRAPH_ORDER is unavoidable, unless priority queue is
enhanced to work as an ordinary FIFO queue in addition to making it work
as LIFO stack.
> }
>
> static struct commit *next_topo_commit(struct rev_info *revs)
> {
> - return pop_commit(&revs->commits);
> + struct commit *c;
> + struct topo_walk_info *info = revs->topo_walk_info;
> +
> + /* pop next off of topo_queue */
> + c = prio_queue_get(&info->topo_queue);
All right, pop_commit() transforms straighforwardly to
prio_queue_get().
> +
> + if (c)
> + *(indegree_slab_at(&info->indegree, c)) = 0;
Why do we need to mark indegree of commit to be returned as undefined
here (INDEGREE_UNINITIALIZED)?
> +
> + return c;
> }
>
Before the change, expand_topo_walk() simply added parents to the list,
and actual sorting was done by sort_in_topological_order().
> static void expand_topo_walk(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit)
> {
> - if (process_parents(revs, commit, &revs->commits, NULL) < 0) {
> + struct commit_list *p;
> + struct topo_walk_info *info = revs->topo_walk_info;
> + if (process_parents(revs, commit, NULL, NULL) < 0) {
All right, here we remove storing commits in revs->commits list, the
third parameter changed from &revs->commits to NULL.
> if (!revs->ignore_missing_links)
> die("Failed to traverse parents of commit %s",
> - oid_to_hex(&commit->object.oid));
> + oid_to_hex(&commit->object.oid));
The above looks like spurious and accidental whitespace change, isn't
it?
> + }
> +
All right, the loop below looks like the inner loop of the Kahn's
algorithm, i.e.:
for each node m with an edge e from n to m do
remove edge e from the graph
if m has no other incoming edges then
insert m into S
> + for (p = commit->parents; p; p = p->next) {
> + struct commit *parent = p->item;
> + int *pi;
> +
> + if (parse_commit_gently(parent, 1) < 0)
> + continue;
All right, we need to parse parent commit to ensure that we can access
its generation number.
> +
> + if (parent->generation < info->min_generation) {
> + info->min_generation = parent->generation;
> + compute_indegrees_to_depth(revs);
> + }
The above ensures that the parent will have correctly calculated
in-degree. Looks all right.
> +
> + pi = indegree_slab_at(&info->indegree, parent);
> +
> + (*pi)--;
remove edge e from the graph
> + if (*pi == 1)
> + prio_queue_put(&info->topo_queue, parent);
If parent has no incoming edges (indegree == 1 == INDEGREE_ZERO), then
insert it into topo_queue.
if m has no other incoming edges then
insert m into S
> +
> + if (revs->first_parent_only)
> + return;
> }
> }
Looks all right.
>
> diff --git a/revision.h b/revision.h
> index fd4154ff75..b0b3bb8025 100644
> --- a/revision.h
> +++ b/revision.h
> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
> #define USER_GIVEN (1u<<25) /* given directly by the user */
> #define TRACK_LINEAR (1u<<26)
> #define ALL_REV_FLAGS (((1u<<11)-1) | USER_GIVEN | TRACK_LINEAR)
> +#define TOPO_WALK_EXPLORED (1u<<27)
> +#define TOPO_WALK_INDEGREE (1u<<28)
To be more exact, this flag does not mean that the commit has been
explored, or has its in-degree calculated, but that it was added to the
queue for exploring, or for having its in-degree calculated.
Current names of those two new preprocessor constants might be
considered mildly misleading, absent context.
>
> #define DECORATE_SHORT_REFS 1
> #define DECORATE_FULL_REFS 2
--
Jakub Narębski
