"Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +static void end_odb_transaction_if_active(void)
> +{
> + if (!odb_transaction_active)
> + return;
> +
> + end_odb_transaction();
> + odb_transaction_active = 0;
> +}
> __attribute__((format (printf, 1, 2)))
> static void report(const char *fmt, ...)
> {
> @@ -57,6 +68,16 @@ static void report(const char *fmt, ...)
> if (!verbose)
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * It is possible, though unlikely, that a caller
> + * could use the verbose output to synchronize with
> + * addition of objects to the object database, so
> + * unplug bulk checkin to make sure that future objects
> + * are immediately visible.
> + */
> +
> + end_odb_transaction_if_active();
> +
> va_start(vp, fmt);
> vprintf(fmt, vp);
> putchar('\n');
> @@ -1116,6 +1137,13 @@ int cmd_update_index(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> */
> parse_options_start(&ctx, argc, argv, prefix,
> options, PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION);
> +
> + /*
> + * Allow the object layer to optimize adding multiple objects in
> + * a batch.
> + */
> + begin_odb_transaction();
> + odb_transaction_active = 1;
This looks strange. Shouldn't begin/end pair be responsible for
knowing if there is a transaction active already? For that matter,
didn't the original unplug in plug/unplug pair automatically turned
into no-op when it is already unplugged?
IOW, I am not sure end_if_active() should exist in the first place.
Shouldn't end_transaction() do that instead?
