Re: [RFH] two and half potential fixlets to the in-core index handling

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> 
>> A hacky solution I have in the attached patch is to waste an xmalloc(1)
>> and store it there when o->result is created, and also make
>> read_from_index() pay attention to the cache_nr and the cache_changed
>> bit. I think it is the safest and minimum fix.
>
> Hmm. Wouldn't it be nicer to just add another bit to istate? We have the 
> space already, since we already have a bitfield there, with just one bit 
> used?

cache_changed can also become a single-bit field.

The oldest "the_index" users work from it in the BSS initialized all
zero.  We'd also need to mark it as initialized, wouldn't we?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux