Re: [PATCH 10/14] treewide: drop uses of `for_each_{loose,packed}_object()`

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Jan 16, 2026, 07:03 UTC
Message-ID: <aWniz5_-Q6o0tJXQ@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <aWlemFAu9HwKgpOe@denethor>

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:44:50PM -0600, Justin Tobler wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On 26/01/15 12:04PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > diff --git a/builtin/cat-file.c b/builtin/cat-file.c
> > index 6964a5a52c..7d16fbc1b8 100644
> > --- a/builtin/cat-file.c
> > +++ b/builtin/cat-file.c
> > @@ -861,8 +871,14 @@ static void batch_each_object(struct batch_options *opt,
> >  						&payload, flags);
> >  		}
> >  	} else {
> > -		for_each_packed_object(the_repository, batch_one_object_packed,
> > -				       &payload, flags);
> > +		struct object_info oi = { 0 };
> > +
> > +		for (source = the_repository->objects->sources; source; source = source->next) {
> > +			int ret = packfile_store_for_each_object(source->packfiles, &oi,
> > +								 batch_one_object_oi, &payload, flags);
> > +			if (ret)
> > +				break;
> > +		}
> 
> Huh, I was a bit surprised to see that we are still handling object
> iteration in a backend specific banner here. I would assume ideally we
> would want to transparently iterate across objects wherever possible. I
> assume the reason here has something to do with how iteration is handled
> with bitmaps?

Exactly. I was pondering a bit over whether or not I should invest a bit more time to also make this part here generic. But I felt like the patch series was already long enough, so I decided to not pursue this for now.

It's certainly something to iterate on in the future though.

Patrick