On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:55:16AM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote: > On 24/08/13 08:24AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > We do not expose any functions via our public headers that would allow a > > caller to initialize a reftable iterator from a merged table. Instead, > > they are expected to go via the generic `reftable_table` interface, > > which is somewhat roundabout. > > > > Implement two new functions to initialize iterators for ref and log > > records to plug this gap. > > > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> > > --- > [snip] > > diff --git a/reftable/reftable-merged.h b/reftable/reftable-merged.h > > index 14d5fc9f05..4deb0ad22e 100644 > > --- a/reftable/reftable-merged.h > > +++ b/reftable/reftable-merged.h > > @@ -36,6 +36,14 @@ int reftable_new_merged_table(struct reftable_merged_table **dest, > > struct reftable_table *stack, size_t n, > > uint32_t hash_id); > > > > +/* Initialize a merged table iterator for reading refs. */ > > +void reftable_merged_table_init_ref_iterator(struct reftable_merged_table *mt, > > + struct reftable_iterator *it); > > + > > +/* Initialize a merged table iterator for reading logs. */ > > +void reftable_merged_table_init_log_iterator(struct reftable_merged_table *mt, > > + struct reftable_iterator *it); > > I might have missed it, but I do not see > `reftable_merged_table_init_log_iterator()` used anywhere in the later > patches. Does this need to be added? Or are we just adding it because we > want a companion function to the ref iterator to be more consistent? The latter. It really should exist to make the public interface complete. Patrick
