From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB1EC433E0 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:53:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C207323108 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:53:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727781AbhASWx0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:53:26 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:60378 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727816AbhASWxJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:53:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 15350 invoked by uid 109); 19 Jan 2021 22:52:04 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:52:04 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 13487 invoked by uid 111); 19 Jan 2021 22:52:05 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:52:05 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:52:03 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: Jacob Vosmaer , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ls-refs.c: minimize number of refs visited Message-ID: References: <20210119144251.27924-1-jacob@gitlab.com> <20210119144251.27924-2-jacob@gitlab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 05:23:36PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > > Having now looked carefully at the ls-refs code, it's a pure > > prefix-match, too. So I think we _could_ rely on for_each_fullref_in() > > returning us the correct full results, and not checking it further in > > send_ref(). But I kind of like keeping it there as an extra check (and > > one which could in theory grow more logic later). > > Hmm. What if the caller asks for: > > ref-prefix refs/tags/a > ref-prefix refs/tags/b > > ? > > The LCP between those two is refs/tags, so send_ref() will presumably > get lots of reuslts that it doesn't care about (assuming there are tags > besides a and b). Oh, you're right, of course. Ignore me. :) -Peff