From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 15:05:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 09/11] add-patch: add support for in-memory index patching
Message-ID: <40695513-d16b-4fe5-b98a-c6f789e3a44c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BGRnx7+qvFcDeWCZEZm1aRn=kRezZ2KZA0E=8hji9Vjiw@mail.gmail.com>

On 20/11/2025 07:04, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 4:34 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> 
> I'm totally unfamiliar with add-patch.[ch] beyond what I've been
> reviewing in this series, so this may be a dumb/naive question, but
> why add a sibling run_add_p_index() to run_add_p() via
> copy+paste+modify?  (Or is it not copy+paste+modify in some
> interesting way?)  I'm worried the two will drift, and I'm curious
> whether run_add_p() should just be calling run_add_p_index() and just
> passing r->index for the index field.  Is there a reason that doesn't
> work?

That's a very good question. I also wondered if there is a way to 
prevent any future changes from accidentally using "s->r->index" instead 
of the "s->index" but I don't think there is.

Thanks

Phillip