Re: [PATCH v2] last-modified: implement faster algorithm

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2025, 00:01 UTC
Message-ID: <aPrByfpOkQ7biyEI@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqecqv1trk.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 08:48:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> > Practically speaking that's probably OK, since we are unlikely to have
> > so many active paths anyway (or if we did, we'd likely have other
> > problems to deal with ;-)), but it is gross nonetheless.
>
> The case path_idx() returns -1 is an error case, not "there are too
> many paths we are following" case.  I do not see what relevance the
> number of active paths has here.

I just meant that we are unlikely to ever have so many active paths at once that (size_t)-1 would actually have a valid entry, or IOW that active_paths_nr is smaller than 2^32-1.

Thanks, Taylor