From: "René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "Derrick Stolee" <stolee@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, "Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] read-cache: fix incorrect count and progress bar stalling
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 18:14:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <74183ce6-e17f-1b11-1ceb-7a8d873bc1c7@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wnr4394y.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
Am 08.06.21 um 12:58 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>
> On Tue, Jun 08 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> So I think this pattern works:
>>>>
>>>> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
>>>> display_progress(p, i);
>>>> /* work work work */
>>>> }
>>>> display_progress(p, nr);
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, if the work part doesn't contain continue statements:
>>>>
>>>> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
>>>> /* work work work */
>>>> display_progress(p, i + 1);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> But yes, I agree with the issue in theory, but I think in practice we
>>> don't need to worry about these 100% cases.
>>
>> Hmph, but in practice we do need to worry, don't we? Otherwise you
>> wouldn't have started this thread and René wouldn't have responded.
>
> I started this thread because of:
>
> for (i = 0; i < large_number; i++) {
> if (maybe_branch_here())
> continue;
> /* work work work */
> display_progress(p, i);
> }
> display_progress(p, large_number);
>
> Mainly because it's a special snowflake in how the process.c API is
> used, with most other callsites doing:
>
> for (i = 0; i < large_number; i++) {
> display_progress(p, i + 1);
> /* work work work */
> }
Moving the first call to the top of the loop makes sense. It ensures
all kind of progress -- skipping and actual work -- is reported without
undue delay.
Adding one would introduce an off-by-one error. Removing the call after
the loop would leave the progress report at one short of 100%. I don't
see any benefits of these additional changes, only downsides.
If other callsites have an off-by-one error and we care enough then we
should fix them. Copying their style and spreading the error doesn't
make sense -- correctness trumps consistency.
> Fair enough, but in the meantime can we take this patch? I think fixing
> that (IMO in practice hypothetical issue) is much easier when we
> consistently use that "i + 1" pattern above (which we mostly do
> already). We can just search-replace "++i" to "i++" and "i + 1" to "i"
> and have stop_progress() be what bumps it to 100%.
This assumes the off-by-one error is consistent. Even if that is the
case you could apply your mechanical fix and leave out read-cache.
This would happen automatically because when keeping i there is no ++i
to be found.
stop_progress() doesn't set the progress to 100%:
$ (echo progress 0; echo update) |
./t/helper/test-tool progress --total 1 test
test: 0% (0/1), done.
I wonder (only in a semi-curious way, though) if we can detect
off-by-one errors by adding an assertion to display_progress() that
requires the first update to have the value 0, and in stop_progress()
one that requires the previous display_progress() call to have a value
equal to the total number of work items. Not sure it'd be worth the
hassle..
René
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-08 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-07 14:43 [PATCH 0/2] trivial progress.c API usage fixes Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 14:43 ` [PATCH 1/2] read-cache.c: don't guard calls to progress.c API Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 15:28 ` Derrick Stolee
2021-06-07 15:52 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 16:11 ` Derrick Stolee
2021-06-07 14:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] read-cache: fix incorrect count and progress bar stalling Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 15:31 ` Derrick Stolee
2021-06-07 15:58 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 19:20 ` René Scharfe
2021-06-07 19:49 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 23:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-06-08 10:58 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-08 16:14 ` René Scharfe [this message]
2021-06-08 22:12 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-10 5:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-06-10 15:14 ` René Scharfe
2021-06-10 15:14 ` René Scharfe
2021-06-14 11:07 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-14 17:18 ` René Scharfe
2021-06-14 19:08 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-15 2:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-06-15 15:14 ` René Scharfe
2021-06-15 16:46 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-20 12:53 ` René Scharfe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=74183ce6-e17f-1b11-1ceb-7a8d873bc1c7@web.de \
--to=l.s.r@web.de \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=stolee@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).