Hi Patrick,
On 1 Feb 2024, at 5:25, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> While working on the optimizations in the preceding patches I stumbled
> upon `table_iter_next()` multiple times. It is quite easy to miss the
> fact that we don't call `table_iter_next_in_block()` twice, but that the
> second call is in fact `table_iter_next_block()`.
>
> Add comments to explain what exactly is going on here to make things
> more obvious. While at it, touch up the code to conform to our code
> style better.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
> ---
> reftable/reader.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/reftable/reader.c b/reftable/reader.c
> index 64dc366fb1..add7d57f0b 100644
> --- a/reftable/reader.c
> +++ b/reftable/reader.c
> @@ -357,24 +357,32 @@ static int table_iter_next(struct table_iter *ti, struct reftable_record *rec)
>
> while (1) {
> struct table_iter next = TABLE_ITER_INIT;
> - int err = 0;
> - if (ti->is_finished) {
> + int err;
> +
> + if (ti->is_finished)
> return 1;
> - }
>
> + /*
> + * Check whether the current block still has more records. If
> + * so, return it. If the iterator returns positive then the
> + * current block has been exhausted.
> + */
> err = table_iter_next_in_block(ti, rec);
> - if (err <= 0) {
> + if (err <= 0)
> return err;
> - }
>
> + /*
> + * Otherwise, we need to continue to the next block in the
> + * table and retry. If there are no more blocks then the
> + * iterator is drained.
> + */
> err = table_iter_next_block(&next, ti);
> - if (err != 0) {
> - ti->is_finished = 1;
> - }
> table_iter_block_done(ti);
> - if (err != 0) {
> + if (err) {
what's the reason for moving the if statement that handles err down after
table_iter_block_done?
> + ti->is_finished = 1;
> return err;
> }
> +
> table_iter_copy_from(ti, &next);
> block_iter_close(&next.bi);
> }
> --
> 2.43.GIT
Thanks
John
