On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 09:24:03AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 02:42:03PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > diff --git a/midx.c b/midx.c
> > index fbce88bd46..f7f509cf46 100644
> > --- a/midx.c
> > +++ b/midx.c
> > @@ -449,50 +449,48 @@ static uint32_t midx_for_pack(struct multi_pack_index **_m,
> > return pack_int_id - m->num_packs_in_base;
> > }
> >
> > -int prepare_midx_pack(struct repository *r, struct multi_pack_index *m,
> > - uint32_t pack_int_id)
> > +struct packed_git *prepare_midx_pack(struct repository *r,
> > + struct multi_pack_index *m,
> > + uint32_t pack_int_id)
> > {
> > - struct strbuf pack_name = STRBUF_INIT;
> > - struct strbuf key = STRBUF_INIT;
> > - struct packed_git *p;
> > + uint32_t pack_pos = midx_for_pack(&m, pack_int_id);
> >
> > - pack_int_id = midx_for_pack(&m, pack_int_id);
> > + if (!m->packs[pack_pos]) {
> > + struct strbuf pack_name = STRBUF_INIT;
> > + struct strbuf key = STRBUF_INIT;
> > + struct packed_git *p;
> >
> > - if (m->packs[pack_int_id] == (void *)(intptr_t)-1)
> > - return 1;
>
> Ah, so this series builds on top of my patch that introduces the
> negative lookup cache? That wasn't quite clear to me and makes it a bit
> hard to iterate on my patch now.
Eek, sorry for the confusion. I mentioned it in the beginning of my
cover letter as well as the (less visible) "base-commit" identifier. Is
there another spot where I could have highlighted the dependency more
clearly?
> Could I suggest that you maybe include that patch as part of this
> series so that those can be iterated on in tandem?
I could, however your branch is already tentatively marked for 'next',
and Junio applied this topic to a branch based on yours as I had
suggested. So we could change it, but I think it would be more of a
hassle for Junio, so I'd rather avoid doing so.
Are there changes that you want to make on top of your patch?
> Overall I think that this change is quite sensible and hides away at
> least some of the complexity. Thanks!
Much appreciated :-).
Thanks,
Taylor
