Re: [PATCH 1/5] refs: store submodule ref stores in a hashmap
On 02/09/2017 09:34 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> [...]
>> +static int submodule_hash_cmp(const void *entry, const void *entry_or_key,
>> + const void *keydata)
>> +{
>> + const struct submodule_hash_entry *e1 = entry, *e2 = entry_or_key;
>> + const char *submodule = keydata;
>> +
>> + return strcmp(e1->submodule, submodule ? submodule : e2->submodule);
>
> I would have found it more readable if it were like so:
>
> const char *submodule = keydata ? keydata : e2->submodule;
>
> return strcmp(e1->submodule, submodule);
>
> but I suspect the difference is not that huge.Yes, that's better. I'll change it.
On 02/10/2017 05:04 AM, Jeff King wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 12:34:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>> +static struct submodule_hash_entry *alloc_submodule_hash_entry(
>>> + const char *submodule, struct ref_store *refs)
>>> +{
>>> + size_t len = strlen(submodule);
>>> + struct submodule_hash_entry *entry = malloc(sizeof(*entry) + len + 1);
>>
>> I think this (and the later memcpy) is what FLEX_ALLOC_MEM() was
>> invented for.
>
> Yes, it was. Though since the length comes from a strlen() call, it can
> actually use the _STR variant, like:
>
> FLEX_ALLOC_STR(entry, submodule, submodule);
>
> Besides being shorter, this does integer-overflow checks on the final
> length.Show 24 quoted lines
>>> @@ -1373,16 +1405,17 @@ void base_ref_store_init(struct ref_store *refs,
>>> die("BUG: main_ref_store initialized twice");
>>>
>>> refs->submodule = "";
>>> - refs->next = NULL;
>>> main_ref_store = refs;
>>> } else {
>>> - if (lookup_ref_store(submodule))
>>> + refs->submodule = xstrdup(submodule);
>>> +
>>> + if (!submodule_ref_stores.tablesize)
>>> + hashmap_init(&submodule_ref_stores, submodule_hash_cmp, 20);
>>
>> Makes me wonder what "20" stands for. Perhaps the caller should be
>> allowed to say "I do not quite care what initial size is" by passing
>> 0 or some equally but more clealy meaningless value (which of course
>> would be outside the scope of this series).
>
> I think this is what "0" already does (grep for HASHMAP_INITIAL_SIZE).
> In fact, that constant is 64. The 20 we pass in goes through some magic
> load-factor computation and ends up as 25. That being smaller than the
> INITIAL_SIZE constant, I believe that we end up allocating 64 entries
> either way (that's just from reading the code, though; I didn't run it
> to double check).I guess I might as well change it to zero, then.
Thanks for the feedback!
Michael
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>