As with the *_fn members removed in a preceding commit, let's not copy
the "data" member of the "struct run_process_parallel_opts" over to
the "struct parallel_processes". Now that we're passing the "opts"
down there's no reason to do so.
This makes the code easier to follow, as we have a "const" attribute
on the "struct run_process_parallel_opts", but not "struct
parallel_processes". We do not alter the "ungroup" argument, so
storing it in the non-const structure would make this control flow
less obvious.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
---
run-command.c | 9 +++------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
index 19d5cff8c65..d382c42f82d 100644
--- a/run-command.c
+++ b/run-command.c
@@ -1497,8 +1497,6 @@ enum child_state {
};
struct parallel_processes {
- void *const data;
-
const size_t max_processes;
size_t nr_processes;
@@ -1609,7 +1607,7 @@ static int pp_start_one(struct parallel_processes *pp,
code = opts->get_next_task(&pp->children[i].process,
opts->ungroup ? NULL : &pp->children[i].err,
- pp->data,
+ opts->data,
&pp->children[i].data);
if (!code) {
if (!opts->ungroup) {
@@ -1628,7 +1626,7 @@ static int pp_start_one(struct parallel_processes *pp,
if (opts->start_failure)
code = opts->start_failure(opts->ungroup ? NULL :
&pp->children[i].err,
- pp->data,
+ opts->data,
pp->children[i].data);
else
code = 0;
@@ -1705,7 +1703,7 @@ static int pp_collect_finished(struct parallel_processes *pp,
if (opts->task_finished)
code = opts->task_finished(code, opts->ungroup ? NULL :
- &pp->children[i].err, pp->data,
+ &pp->children[i].err, opts->data,
pp->children[i].data);
else
code = 0;
@@ -1758,7 +1756,6 @@ void run_processes_parallel(const struct run_process_parallel_opts *opts)
int spawn_cap = 4;
struct parallel_processes pp = {
.max_processes = opts->processes,
- .data = opts->data,
.buffered_output = STRBUF_INIT,
};
/* options */
--
2.38.0.971.ge79ff6d20e7
