From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:49:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/20] refs: record the ref_store in ref_cache, not ref_dir
Message-ID: <c057d1f5-e8c6-3c08-2b18-e5cf73f74e57@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8BM1nHhbKo9ioAP2OC2UU-RMWhmJ5OsYZwWYqek++DA0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/07/2017 01:38 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Instead of keeping a pointer to the ref_store in every ref_dir entry,
>> store it once in `struct ref_cache`, and change `struct ref_dir` to
>> include a pointer to its containing `ref_cache` instead. This makes it
>> easier to add to the information that is accessible from a `ref_dir`
>> without increasing the size of every `ref_dir` instance.
> ...
>> @@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ static struct ref_dir *get_loose_refs(struct files_ref_store *refs)
>>                  * lazily):
>>                  */
>>                 add_entry_to_dir(get_ref_dir(refs->loose->root),
>> -                                create_dir_entry(refs, "refs/", 5, 1));
>> +                                create_dir_entry(refs->loose, "refs/", 5, 1));
> 
> The commit message mentions nothing about this change. Is it intended?

The old `create_dir_entry()` took a `files_ref_store` as its first
parameter, because that is what needed to be stored into the old
`dir_entry` struct. The new version takes a `ref_cache`, because that is
what the new `dir_entry` struct requires. This hunk is a logical
consequence of that change.

I'll improve the commit message to explain this better.

Thanks,
Michael