> Me too. If we wanted to go further, there are two obvious next steps.
>
> One, we can break out of the bitmap loop early if we're not tracing:
> diff --git a/pack-bitmap.c b/pack-bitmap.c
> index aaa2d9a104..3b6c2f804a 100644
> --- a/pack-bitmap.c
> +++ b/pack-bitmap.c
> @@ -527,8 +527,15 @@ static int open_pack_bitmap(struct repository *r,
> assert(!bitmap_git->map);
>
> for (p = get_all_packs(r); p; p = p->next) {
> - if (open_pack_bitmap_1(bitmap_git, p) == 0)
> + if (open_pack_bitmap_1(bitmap_git, p) == 0) {
> ret = 0;
> + /*
> + * The only reason to keep looking is to report
> + * duplicates.
> + */
> + if (!trace2_is_enabled())
> + break;
> + }
> }
>
> return ret;
>
> I doubt this buys us much in practice. After patch 2, looking for extra
> bitmaps is much cheaper. It's one open() call per pack (which will
> return ENOENT normally) looking for a bitmap. And while it's only 2
> lines of code, it does increase coupling of assumptions between the two
> functions. So maybe not worth doing. I dunno.
I agree and I think it's reasonable.
So If I bring it into the patch how about the commit message:
Author: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Nov 17 19:55:23 2022 +0800
pack-bitmap.c: break out of the bitmap loop early if not tracing
When we successfully open a bitmap, we will continue to try to open
other packs, and when trace2 is enabled, we will report any subsequent
bitmap ignored information in the log. So when we find that trace2 is
not enabled, we can actually terminate the loop early.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@xxxxxxxxx>
> And two, we could complain when there is both a midx and a pack bitmap,
> like so:
>
> diff --git a/pack-bitmap.c b/pack-bitmap.c
> index 3b6c2f804a..44a80ed8f2 100644
> --- a/pack-bitmap.c
> +++ b/pack-bitmap.c
> @@ -524,8 +524,6 @@ static int open_pack_bitmap(struct repository *r,
> struct packed_git *p;
> int ret = -1;
>
> - assert(!bitmap_git->map);
> -
> for (p = get_all_packs(r); p; p = p->next) {
> if (open_pack_bitmap_1(bitmap_git, p) == 0) {
> ret = 0;
> @@ -559,11 +557,20 @@ static int open_midx_bitmap(struct repository *r,
> static int open_bitmap(struct repository *r,
> struct bitmap_index *bitmap_git)
> {
> + int found = 0;
> +
> assert(!bitmap_git->map);
>
> - if (!open_midx_bitmap(r, bitmap_git))
> - return 0;
> - return open_pack_bitmap(r, bitmap_git);
> + found = !open_midx_bitmap(r, bitmap_git);
> +
> + /*
> + * these will all be skipped if we opened a midx bitmap; but run it
> + * anyway if tracing is enabled to report the duplicates
> + */
> + if (!found || trace2_is_enabled())
> + found |= !open_pack_bitmap(r, bitmap_git);
> +
> + return found ? 0 : -1;
> }
>
> struct bitmap_index *prepare_bitmap_git(struct repository *r)
>
> But I'm not sure if that is even something we want. I know we retained
> pack bitmaps as a quick recovery mechanism while test-deploying midx
> bitmaps. OTOH, now that the feature is stable, I doubt anybody else
> would ever do that.
>
> It also suffers from the same coupling issues as the other.
>
> So I don't know that either is worth pursuing (hence this message and
> not fully prepared patches), but these are just the two leftover things
> I noticed from the series, so I wanted to record them for posterity.
Since this is an internal mechanism, and we are doing reminders in trace2, so
the diff looks good to me. How about the commit message if I need to take it:
Author: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Nov 17 20:25:18 2022 +0800
pack-bitmap.c: trace bitmap ignore logs when midx-bitmap is found
We retained pack bitmaps as a quick recovery mechanism while
test-deploying midx bitmaps. This is an internal mechanism, and we
want to expose this rule externally through trace2 so that end users,
repo-maintainers, and debuggers know what is happening in the process.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@xxxxxxxxx>
Thank you Peff for providing such detailed suggestions for improvement.
