Re: [PATCH 7/8] builtin/repack.c: drop `DELETE_PACK` macro

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 6, 2023, 17:05 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh6o7nsf2.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <559b487e2ab056c79367a673188764e4cdce3c96.1693946195.git.me@ttaylorr.com>

Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
> ---
>  builtin/repack.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

The reason being...?

Show 6 quoted lines

> @@ -130,7 +132,7 @@ static void mark_packs_for_deletion_1(struct string_list *names,
>  		 * (if `-d` was given).
>  		 */
>  		if (!string_list_has_string(names, sha1))
> -			item->util = (void*)(uintptr_t)((size_t)item->util | DELETE_PACK);
> +			item->util = (void*)1;

Presumably the literal "1" is promoted to an appropriate type (uintptr_t) here?

    We originally planned to use the .util member to store a bitset
    to represent various attributes for each pack, and defined
    DELETE_PACK as one of the possible bits, but over the N years of
    its existence, we never found the need for the second bit.

or something?

It is not a bad idea to demote .util from a set of bits to just a "is it NULL?" boolean, but updating the above to something like

	#define DELETE_PACK ((void*)(uintptr_t)1)
	item->util = DELETE_PACK;

may still reap the same simplification benefit without introducing the "what is that _one_ about? can it be _two_ without changing the meaning or what?" puzzlement.

Other than that, everything else in the series looked quite straight-forward and sensible.

Thanks.