git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work

From
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date
Nov 13, 2017, 22:26 UTC
Message-ID
<CABPp-BHhFq3C1t6TO2FMVT8=Bwf__cHhu2U-c+wd5zwHX-=9uQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20171113133316.c10bd360b4af10e572049443@google.com>
Thanks for the reviews!
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:15:58 -0800
> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -static int display(struct progress *progress, unsigned n, const char *done)
>> +static int display(struct progress *progress, uint64_t n, const char *done)
>>  {
>>       const char *eol, *tp;
>>
>> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int display(struct progress *progress, unsigned n, const char *done)
>>               if (percent != progress->last_percent || progress_update) {
>>                       progress->last_percent = percent;
>>                       if (is_foreground_fd(fileno(stderr)) || done) {
>> -                             fprintf(stderr, "%s: %3u%% (%u/%u)%s%s",
>> +                             fprintf(stderr, "%s: %3u%% (%"PRIuMAX"/%"PRIuMAX")%s%s",
>>                                       progress->title, percent, n,
>>                                       progress->total, tp, eol);
>
> I think it would be better to cast the appropriate arguments to
> uintmax_t - searching through the Git code shows that we do that in
> several situations. Same for the rest of the diff.

Interesting. My first inclination was to ask why not just change the variables to be of type uintmax_t instead of uint64_t (since we're already changing their types already), and then get rid of the cast. But I went digging through the source code based on your comment. Almost all the existing examples in the codebase were off_t and size_t values; there was only one case with uint64_t...but that one case led me to commit 5be507fc95 (Use PRIuMAX instead of 'unsigned long long' in show-index 2007-10-21), and that commit does suggest doing exactly as you say here.

I'll fix it up.
Previous: Jonathan TanNext: Elijah Newren
Message 7 of 8 in “Fix issues with rename detection limits”
  1. 0/4 Fix issues with rename detection limitsElijah Newren, Nov 13, 2017
  2. 1/4 sequencer: warn when internal merge may be suboptimal due to renameLimitElijah Newren, Nov 13, 2017
  3. 3/4 Remove silent clamp of renameLimitElijah Newren, Nov 13, 2017
  4. 2/4 progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of workElijah Newren, Nov 13, 2017
  5. Jonathan TanNov 13, 2017
  6. Jonathan TanNov 13, 2017
  7. Elijah NewrenNov 13, 2017
  8. 4/4 sequencer: show rename progress during cherry picksElijah Newren, Nov 13, 2017

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.