Re: [PATCH] cherry: cache patch-ids to avoid repeating work
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jul 11, 2008, 15:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0807111635400.8950@racer>
- In-Reply-To
- <7f9d599f0807110758y6c4ea7bepd726daf4fe5f074c@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Irving wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > "Geoffrey Irving" <irving@naml.us> writes:
> >
> >>>> Oops: avoiding the infinite loop only requires reading expected O(1)
> >>>> entries on load, so I can fix that if you like. It would only be all of
> >>>> them if it actually did detect the infinite loop.
> >>>
> >>> I have to admit that you lost me there. AFAIR the patch-id cache is a
> >>> simple commit->patch_id store, right? Then there should be no way to get
> >>> an infinite loop.
> >>
> >> If every entry is nonnull, find_helper loops forever.
> >
> > Isn't it sufficient to make this part check the condition as well?
> >
> > + if (cache->count >= cache->size)
> > + {
> > + warning("%s is corrupt: count %"PRIu32" >= size %"PRIu32,
> > + filename, cache->count, cache->size);
> > + goto empty;
> > + }
> >
> > At runtime you keep the invariants that hashtable always has at most 3/4
> > full and whoever wrote the file you are reading must have honored that as
> > well, or there is something fishy going on.
>
> Good point. There's no reason not to check the 3/4 condition. It isn't
> sufficient to avoid the infinite loop, though, since we don't verify
> that count is accurate.Why so complicated? I mean, you can count in that "infinite" loop yourself, no?
Ciao, Dscho