Re: [PATCH v1 10/19] read-cache: regenerate shared index if necessary

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 29, 2016, 22:58 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1qTeppaW2NRWhAxz0tJ7EtwmiOjKUnQt8q89FdC8kXWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8CfQ6d3Q74W4rm=rJD69EAzuUe7PdrW-5NDo0vHuDSNpw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Christian Couder
> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @@ -2233,7 +2263,8 @@ int write_locked_index(struct index_state *istate, struct lock_file *lock,
>>                 if ((v & 15) < 6)
>>                         istate->cache_changed |= SPLIT_INDEX_ORDERED;
>>         }
>> -       if (istate->cache_changed & SPLIT_INDEX_ORDERED) {
>> +       if (istate->cache_changed & SPLIT_INDEX_ORDERED ||
>> +           too_many_not_shared_entries(istate)) {
>
> It's probably safer to keep this piece unchanged and add this
> somewhere before it
>
> if (too_many_not_shared_entries(istate))
>     istate->cache_changed |= SPLIT_INDEX_ORDERED;
>
> We could keep cache_changed consistent until the end this way.

Ok, it will be in the next version.

Show 5 quoted lines

>>  test_expect_success 'enable split index' '
>> +       git config splitIndex.maxPercentChange 100 &&
>
> An alternative name might be splitThreshold. I don't know, maybe
> maxPercentChange is better.

I think it is important to say that it is a percent in the name, so I prefer maxPercentChange.

Thanks, Christian.