Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] submodule: parallelize diff
- From
Calvin Wan <calvinwan@google.com>
- Date
- Jan 17, 2023, 19:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAFySSZC9XpCLjh7jCSNvixXhfrfGHpVr_coqHrKAXZbYzoT+5w@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqv8l8f8j8.fsf@gitster.g>
Hi Junio
I've sent out a reroll to fix this. Thanks!
Passing leaks CI at: https://github.com/calvin-wan-google/git/actions/runs/3942292098 (linux-musl technically failed, but it looks like for other reasons)
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 1:31 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 58 quoted lines
> > Calvin Wan <calvinwan@google.com> writes: > > > Original cover letter for context: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20221011232604.839941-1-calvinwan@google.com/ > > ... > > Calvin Wan (5): > > run-command: add duplicate_output_fn to run_processes_parallel_opts > > submodule: strbuf variable rename > > submodule: move status parsing into function > > diff-lib: refactor match_stat_with_submodule > > diff-lib: parallelize run_diff_files for submodules > > > > Documentation/config/submodule.txt | 12 ++ > > diff-lib.c | 103 +++++++++++-- > > run-command.c | 13 +- > > run-command.h | 24 +++ > > submodule.c | 229 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > submodule.h | 9 ++ > > t/helper/test-run-command.c | 21 +++ > > t/t0061-run-command.sh | 39 +++++ > > t/t4027-diff-submodule.sh | 19 +++ > > t/t7506-status-submodule.sh | 19 +++ > > 10 files changed, 441 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > While the topic is marked as "Needs review" in the recent "What's > cooking" reports, merging this topic also breaks the "linux-leaks" > job by causing many tests fail: > > t3040-subprojects-basic.sh > t4010-diff-pathspec.sh > t4015-diff-whitespace.sh > t4027-diff-submodule.sh > t7403-submodule-sync.sh > t7409-submodule-detached-work-tree.sh > t7416-submodule-dash-url.sh > t7450-bad-git-dotfiles.sh > t7506-status-submodule.sh > > Two of the test scripts are touched by this topic, and their > breakage could be caused by newly using other git subcommands that > were known to be leaking (iow, not because this series introduced > new leaks). It also is possible that they fail because this series > added new leaks to the commands these two test scripts use. In > either case, other tests that haven't been touched by this topic > were definitely broken by new leaks introduced by the changes made > by this series. > > Anybody interested should be able to see the breakage themselves by > checking out 'seen' and running > > SANTIZE=leak GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true \ > make test > > to see the tree with all in-flight topics are clean, and then by > running the same test after merging this topic to 'seen'. > > Thanks.