From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2017, #02; Fri, 3)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:28:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BA6E546F-3594-4673-A43B-7E4D4CEA8F68@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq60jmnmef.fsf@junio-linux.mtv.corp.google.com>
> On 06 Mar 2017, at 22:08, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> On 04 Mar 2017, at 00:26, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> * ls/filter-process-delayed (2017-01-08) 1 commit
>>> . convert: add "status=delayed" to filter process protocol
Sorry for the delayed response. I am still pursuing this topic but
unfortunately I wasn't able to spend time on it recently.
> For example, your async_convert_to_working_tree() returns Success or
> Delayed [*2*] and the callers of write_entry() cannot tell which the
> paths on the filesystem needs a call to checkout_delayed_entries()
> to finish them before they can safely tell the outside world that
> these paths are safe to use.
>
> It seems to me that any caller that calls checkout_entry() needs to
> essentially do:
>
> - compute which entries in the index need to be checked out
> to the filesystem;
>
> - for each of them:
> - call checkout_entry()
>
> - call checkout_delayed_entries(), because among the
> checkout_entry() calls we did in the above loop, some of
> them may have "delayed", but we do not know which one(s).
Agreed. Would it be OK to store the "delayed" bit in the cache
entry itself? The extended ce_flags are stored on disk which is not
necessary I think. Would a new member in the cache_entry struct be
an acceptable option?
> Output from "git grep -e checkout_delayed_entries -e checkout_entry"
> seems to tell me that at least builtin/apply.c and
> builtin/checkout-index.c forget the last step.
For all these "single" checkout entry places the delayed checkout
makes no sense I think. Would you prefer something likes this:
checkout_entry(); finish_checkout();
or this:
checkout_entry(..., DISABLE_DELAYED_CHECKOUT);
in all these places?
> I'd understand the design better if the delayed-item list were a
> part of the "struct checkout" state structure, and write_entry(),
This works [1], however I had to remove "const" from
"const struct checkout *state" in a few places. OK?
> when delaying the write, returned enough information (not just "this
> has been delayed") that can be used to later instruct the
> long-running filter process things like "you gave me this 'delayed'
> token earlier; I want the result for it now!", "are you finished
> processing my earlier request, to which you gave me this 'delayed'
> token?", etc. One of these instructions could be "here is the
> path. write the result out for the earlier request of mine you gave
> me this 'delayed' token for. I do not need the result in-core. And
> take as much time as you need--I do not mind blocking here at this
> point." In a future, a new instruction may be added to ask "please
> give me the result in-core, as if you returned the result to my
> earlier original async_convert_to_working_tree() call without
> delaying the request."
>
> Within such a framework, your checkout_delayed_entries() would be a
> special case for finalizing a "struct checkout" that has been in
> use. By enforcing that any "struct checkout" begins its life by a
> "state = CHECKOUT_INIT" initialization and finishes its life by a
> "finish_checkout(&state)" call, we will reduce risks to forget
> making necessary call to checkout_delayed_entries(), I would think.
Agreed. How would you want to enforce "finish_checkout(&state)", though?
By convention or by different means?
> *2* By the way, the code in write_entry() should have a final else
> clause that diagnoses an error return from
> async_convert_to_working_tree() and act on it---an unexpected return
> will fall through to the code that opens output fd and
It is ok for async_convert_to_working_tree() to fail if the filter is not
required. That's how it is currently implemented upstream.
I will post a new round to the mailing list soon. Here is a preview if
you want to look at the const changes etc:
https://github.com/larsxschneider/git/commit/a0132e564faaf5bca76af0ccc4ec6fe900be739a?w=1
Thanks,
Lars
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-21 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-03 23:26 What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2017, #02; Fri, 3) Junio C Hamano
2017-03-04 14:35 ` Stephan Beyer
2017-03-05 16:04 ` Pranit Bauva
2017-03-04 17:32 ` Lars Schneider
2017-03-06 21:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-21 8:28 ` Lars Schneider [this message]
2017-03-21 17:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-22 7:08 ` Lars Schneider
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=BA6E546F-3594-4673-A43B-7E4D4CEA8F68@gmail.com \
--to=larsxschneider@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.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).