Le 30/10/2018 à 17:47, Phillip Wood a écrit :
> On 27/10/2018 22:29, Alban Gruin wrote:
>> This refactors sequencer_add_exec_commands() to work on a todo_list to
>> avoid redundant reads and writes to the disk.
>>
>> An obvious way to do this would be to insert the `exec' command between
>> the other commands, and reparse it once this is done. This is not what
>> is done here. Instead, the command is appended to the buffer once, and
>> a new list of items is created. Items from the old list are copied to
>> it, and new `exec' items are appended when necessary. This eliminates
>> the need to reparse the todo list, but this also means its buffer cannot
>> be directly written to the disk, hence todo_list_write_to_disk().
>
> I'd reword this slightly, maybe
>
> Instead of just inserting the `exec' command between the other commands,
> and re-parsing the buffer at the end the exec command is appended to the
> buffer once, and a new list of items is created. Items from the old
> list are copied across and new `exec' items are appended when necessary.
> This eliminates the need to reparse the buffer, but this also means we
> have to use todo_list_write_to_disk() to write the file.
>
>> sequencer_add_exec_commands() still reads the todo list from the disk,
>> as it is needed by rebase -p. todo_list_add_exec_commands() works on a
>> todo_list structure, and reparses it at the end.
>
> I think the saying 'reparses' is confusing as that is what we're trying
> to avoid.
>
>> complete_action() still uses sequencer_add_exec_commands() for now.
>> This will be changed in a future commit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> sequencer.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
>> index e12860c047..12a3efeca8 100644
>> --- a/sequencer.c
>> +++ b/sequencer.c
>> @@ -4216,6 +4216,50 @@ int sequencer_make_script(FILE *out, int argc,
>> const char **argv,
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +static void todo_list_add_exec_commands(struct todo_list *todo_list,
>> + const char *commands)
>> +{
>> + struct strbuf *buf = &todo_list->buf;
>> + const char *old_buf = buf->buf;
>> + size_t commands_len = strlen(commands + strlen("exec ")) - 1;
>> + int i, first = 1, nr = 0, alloc = 0;
>
> Minor nit pick, I think it is clearer if first is initialized just
> before the loop as it is in the deleted code below.
>
>> + struct todo_item *items = NULL,
>> + base_item = {TODO_EXEC, NULL, 0, 0, commands_len, 0};
>> +
>> + strbuf_addstr(buf, commands);
>> + base_item.offset_in_buf = buf->len - commands_len - 1;
>> + base_item.arg = buf->buf + base_item.offset_in_buf;
>
> I think if the user gives --exec more than once on the command line then
> commands will contain more than one exec command so this needs to parse
> commands and create one todo_item for each command.
>
Ouch, you’re right. Thanks for the heads up.
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Insert <commands> after every pick. Here, fixup/squash chains
>> + * are considered part of the pick, so we insert the commands
>> *after*
>> + * those chains if there are any.
>> + */
>> + for (i = 0; i < todo_list->nr; i++) {
>> + enum todo_command command = todo_list->items[i].command;
>> + if (todo_list->items[i].arg)
>> + todo_list->items[i].arg = todo_list->items[i].arg -
>> old_buf + buf->buf;
>> +
>> + if (command == TODO_PICK && !first) {
>> + ALLOC_GROW(items, nr + 1, alloc);
>> + memcpy(items + nr++, &base_item, sizeof(struct todo_item));
>
> I think it would be clearer to say
> items[nr++] = base_item;
> rather than using memcpy. This applies below and to some of the other
> patches as well. Also this needs to loop over all the base_items if the
> user gave --exec more than once on the command line.
>
I agree with you, it’s way more readable, IMO. But for some reason, I
thought it was not possible to assign a struct to another in C.
> Best Wishes
>
> Phillip
>
Cheers,
Alban
