Lidong Yan <yldhome2d2@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Remove `if (spec->nr > 1)` to enable bloom filter given multiple
> pathspec. Wrapped for loop around code in prepare_to_use_bloom_filter()
> to initialize each pathspec's struct bloom_keyvec. Add for loop
> in check_maybe_different_in_bloom_filter() to find if at least one
> pathspec's bloom_keyvec is contained in bloom filter.
Oy. That's too dense enumeration but I suspect are all "what the
patch does" that can be read from the diff. The first sentence
gives "why", which is excellent.
You'd need to check in forbid_bloom_filters() that none of the
pathspec items have magic (other than literal), not just the first
one, no?
Totally outside the topic, but I wonder if we can further optimize
by adding an early rejection using .nowildcard_len? Instead of
allowing a wildcarded "dir/*" pathspec element from disabling the
Bloom filter altogether, we could say "dir/ is not possibly altered,
so there may be dir/A, dir/B, etc., in the directory, nothing that
would match dir/* wildcard would have been modified", couldn't we?
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index cf7dc3b3fa..8818f017f3 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -675,8 +675,6 @@ static int forbid_bloom_filters(struct pathspec *spec)
> {
> if (spec->has_wildcard)
> return 1;
> - if (spec->nr > 1)
> - return 1;
> if (spec->magic & ~PATHSPEC_LITERAL)
> return 1;
> if (spec->nr && (spec->items[0].magic & ~PATHSPEC_LITERAL))
This last check only looks at the first item. It used to be OK
because we didn't look at a pathspec with more than one element, but
now shouldn't we care?
Thanks.
