Re: Re: [PATCH] implement submodule config cache for lookup of submodule names

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 13, 2014, 00:46 UTC
Message-ID: <20140313004605.GC15625@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140312235833.GA5300@sandbox-ub>

Heiko Voigt wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 07:28:52PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Heiko Voigt wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>>> +static unsigned int hash_sha1_string(const unsigned char *sha1, const char *string)
>>> +{
>>> +	return memhash(sha1, 20) + strhash(string);
>>> +}
>>
>> Feels a bit unconventional.  I can't find a strong reason to mind.
>
> Well I did not think much about this. I simply thought: hash -> kind of
> random value. Adding the two together is as good as anything (even
> overflow does not matter).

[...]

> I am fine with a switch to something different. We could use classic XOR
> in case that feels better.

Either + or ^ is fine with me (yeah, '^' is what I expected so '+' forced me to think for a few seconds). I don't think we have to worry much about hostile people making repos that force git to spend a long time dealing with hash collisions, so anything more complicated is probably overkill. :)

[...]

Show 12 quoted lines

>> [...]
>>> +static void warn_multiple_config(struct submodule_config *config, const char *option)
>>> +{
>>> +	warning("%s:.gitmodules, multiple configurations found for submodule.%s.%s. "
>>> +			"Skipping second one!", sha1_to_hex(config->gitmodule_sha1),
>>> +			option, config->name.buf);
>>
>> Ah, so gitmodule_sha1 is a commit id?
>
> No, this output is a bug. gitmodule_sha1 is actually the sha1 of the
> .gitmodule blob we read. Thanks for noticing will fix. Should I also add
> a comment to the gitmodule_sha1 field to explain what it is?

[...]

>                                                                   with
> the clarification does the name make sense now?

Yep.  Suggested fixes:

 - call it gitmodules_sha1 instead of gitmodule_sha1 (it's the blob
   name for .gitmodules, not the name of a module)

 - add a comment where the field is declared (this would make it clear
   that it's a blob name instead of e.g. just the SHA-1 of the text)

Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Jonathan