On 4/24/2023 11:02 PM, Han Xin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 10:44 PM Derrick Stolee
> <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -70,15 +76,17 @@ static void mark_common(struct negotiation_state *ns, struct commit *commit,
>>> ns->non_common_revs--;
>>> if (!o->parsed && !dont_parse)
>>> if (repo_parse_commit(the_repository, commit))
>>> - return;
>>> + continue;
>>>
>>> + ancestors_only = 0;
>>
>> This caught me off guard, but this flag essentially says "should
>> I mark the first commit as common or not?". It would probably be
>> clearer if this was done before the loop, and then was ignored
>> within the loop, setting the flag on each parent in this loop:
>>
>>> for (parents = commit->parents;
>>> parents;
>>> parents = parents->next)
>>> - mark_common(ns, parents->item, 0,
>>> - dont_parse);
>>> + prio_queue_put(&queue, parents->item);
>>
>
> I'll think about how to optimize this again.
>
> ancestors_only is used multiple times in the original logic:
> 1.
> if (!ancestors_only)
> o->flags |= COMMON;
> 2.
> if (!(o->flags & SEEN))
> rev_list_push(ns, commit, SEEN);
> else {
> struct commit_list *parents;
>
> if (!ancestors_only && !(o->flags & POPPED))
> ns->non_common_revs--;
Good point. Thanks for checking.
> Should we use this ?
>
> if (!ancestors_only) {
> commit->object.flags |= COMMON;
>
> if ((commit->object.flags & SEEN) &&
> !(commit->object.flags & POPPED))
> ns->non_common_revs--;
> }
This seems correct, although your email seems to have done a strange
line wrap that I'm sure you'll fix in the actual patch.
> and
>
> for (parents = commit->parents;
> parents;
> parents = parents->next) {
> if (parents->item->object.flags & COMMON)
> continue;
>
> parents->item->object.flags |= COMMON;
Thanks, this part avoids duplicate additions to the queue.
> if ((parents->item->object.flags & SEEN)
> && !(parents->item->object.flags & POPPED))
> ns->non_common_revs--;
And this matches the non_common_revs part.
If you want this code to be a little cleaner, you could add
struct commit *p = parents->item;
at the start of the loop and then s/parents->item/p/ for the rest
of the uses in the loop.
> prio_queue_put(&queue, parents->item);
> }
>> In addition, the mark_common() method there seems to have a few
>> problems:
...
>> Consider fixing these issues while you are here.
>>
>
> Make sense.
I'm looking forward to your v2!
Thanks,
-Stolee
