Re: DONTUSE Re: [PATCH] Use a hashtable for objects instead of a sorted list

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 12, 2006, 17:26 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0602121822060.21959@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7virrkbsgp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hi,

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> The problem does not seem to trigger with casual use, but I
> found that with a clone from my primary repository with '-l -s'
> (that is, a clone that uses alternates mechanism to borrow from
> my primary repository), fsck-objects built with the patch seems
> to report bogus things "missing".  I have not traced it fully;
> instead I ended up spending most of the night (I noticed it at
> around 01:30 and now it is 05:30 so that's about four hours)
> recovering some of my refs and double checking if my primary
> repository is not corrupt X-<.  At least, the primary repository
> looks sane now.

Could it be the shallow thing?

+
+void for_each_object(void (*fn)(struct object *))
+{
+       int i;
+       for (i = 0; i < nr_objs; i++)
+               fn(objs[i]);
+}

This will not work with the hashtable. It has to be something like

void for_each_object(void (*fn)(struct object *))
{
       int i;
       for (i = 0; i < obj_allocs; i++)
               if (objs[i])
			fn(objs[i]);
}

This error did not trigger here, since I don't use shallow clones.

Again, sorry for the inconvenience, Junio.

Hth, Dscho

Re: ***DONTUSE*** Re: [PATCH] Use a hashtable for objects instead of a sorted list

Re: DONTUSE Re: [PATCH] Use a hashtable for objects instead of a sorted list