threads / patch / 48809

patchfast-import: Don't count delta attempts against an empty buffer

Subject: [PATCH] fast-import: Don't count delta attempts against an empty buffer

## tl;dr

4 messages between Jun 30, 2018 and Jul 6, 2018. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 3people: 2as markdown or json

Mike Hommey· Jun 30, 2018, 21:41 UTC · lore

When the reference buffer is empty, diff_delta returns NULL without really attempting anything, yet fast-import counts that as a delta attempt.

Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
---
 fast-import.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Show changes to fast-import.c +1 −1
diff --git a/fast-import.c b/fast-import.c
index 4d55910ab9..12195d54d7 100644
--- a/fast-import.c
+++ b/fast-import.c
@@ -1076,7 +1076,7 @@ static int store_object(
 		return 1;
 	}
 
-	if (last && last->data.buf && last->depth < max_depth
+	if (last && last->data.len && last->data.buf && last->depth < max_depth
 		&& dat->len > the_hash_algo->rawsz) {
 
 		delta_count_attempts_by_type[type]++;
-- 
2.18.0
Junio C Hamano· Jul 3, 2018, 18:41 UTC · re: Mike Hommey · lore

Re: [PATCH] fast-import: Don't count delta attempts against an empty buffer

Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:
> When the reference buffer is empty, diff_delta returns NULL without
> really attempting anything, yet fast-import counts that as a delta
> attempt.

But that is an attempt nevertheless, no? Attempted and failed to find anything useful, that is. What problem are you trying to solve and what issue are you trying to address, exactly?

... goes and reads the patch ...
Show 18 quoted lines
> Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
> ---
>  fast-import.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fast-import.c b/fast-import.c
> index 4d55910ab9..12195d54d7 100644
> --- a/fast-import.c
> +++ b/fast-import.c
> @@ -1076,7 +1076,7 @@ static int store_object(
>  		return 1;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (last && last->data.buf && last->depth < max_depth
> +	if (last && last->data.len && last->data.buf && last->depth < max_depth
>  		&& dat->len > the_hash_algo->rawsz) {
>  
>  		delta_count_attempts_by_type[type]++;

This is a misleading patch as the title and the proposed log message both talk about "attempts are counted but we didn't actually do anything", implying that the only problem is that the counter is not aligned with reality. The fact that the post-context we see here only shows the "counting" part does not help us, either.

But the next line in the post-context is actually code that does something important, which is ...

		delta = diff_delta(last->data.buf, last->data.len,
			dat->buf, dat->len,
			&deltalen, dat->len - the_hash_algo->rawsz);
	} else
		delta = NULL;

... and makes the reader realize that the change itself is much better than the patch with 3-line context, the title, and the proposed log message advertises it as ;-)

How about selling it this way instead?
	fast-import: do not call diff_delta() with empty buffer
	We know diff_delta() returns NULL, saying "no good delta
	exists for it", when fed an empty data.  Check the length of
	the data in the caller to avoid such a call.  
	This incidentally reduces the number of attempted deltification
	we see in the final statistics.
or something like that?
Mike Hommey· Jul 3, 2018, 21:59 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH] fast-import: Don't count delta attempts against an empty buffer

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:41:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 63 quoted lines
> Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:
> 
> > When the reference buffer is empty, diff_delta returns NULL without
> > really attempting anything, yet fast-import counts that as a delta
> > attempt.
> 
> But that is an attempt nevertheless, no?  Attempted and failed to
> find anything useful, that is.  What problem are you trying to solve
> and what issue are you trying to address, exactly?
> 
> ... goes and reads the patch ...
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
> > ---
> >  fast-import.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fast-import.c b/fast-import.c
> > index 4d55910ab9..12195d54d7 100644
> > --- a/fast-import.c
> > +++ b/fast-import.c
> > @@ -1076,7 +1076,7 @@ static int store_object(
> >  		return 1;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if (last && last->data.buf && last->depth < max_depth
> > +	if (last && last->data.len && last->data.buf && last->depth < max_depth
> >  		&& dat->len > the_hash_algo->rawsz) {
> >  
> >  		delta_count_attempts_by_type[type]++;
> 
> This is a misleading patch as the title and the proposed log message
> both talk about "attempts are counted but we didn't actually do
> anything", implying that the only problem is that the counter is not
> aligned with reality.  The fact that the post-context we see here
> only shows the "counting" part does not help us, either.
> 
> But the next line in the post-context is actually code that does
> something important, which is ...
> 
> 		delta = diff_delta(last->data.buf, last->data.len,
> 			dat->buf, dat->len,
> 			&deltalen, dat->len - the_hash_algo->rawsz);
> 	} else
> 		delta = NULL;
> 
> 
> ... and makes the reader realize that the change itself is much
> better than the patch with 3-line context, the title, and the
> proposed log message advertises it as ;-)
> 
> How about selling it this way instead?
> 
> 	fast-import: do not call diff_delta() with empty buffer
> 
> 	We know diff_delta() returns NULL, saying "no good delta
> 	exists for it", when fed an empty data.  Check the length of
> 	the data in the caller to avoid such a call.  
> 
> 	This incidentally reduces the number of attempted deltification
> 	we see in the final statistics.
> 
> or something like that?
Fair enough. Do you want me to send a v2 with this description?
Mike
Junio C Hamano· Jul 6, 2018, 16:45 UTC · re: Mike Hommey · lore

Re: [PATCH] fast-import: Don't count delta attempts against an empty buffer

Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:
Show 66 quoted lines
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:41:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:
>> 
>> > When the reference buffer is empty, diff_delta returns NULL without
>> > really attempting anything, yet fast-import counts that as a delta
>> > attempt.
>> 
>> But that is an attempt nevertheless, no?  Attempted and failed to
>> find anything useful, that is.  What problem are you trying to solve
>> and what issue are you trying to address, exactly?
>> 
>> ... goes and reads the patch ...
>> 
>> > Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
>> > ---
>> >  fast-import.c | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fast-import.c b/fast-import.c
>> > index 4d55910ab9..12195d54d7 100644
>> > --- a/fast-import.c
>> > +++ b/fast-import.c
>> > @@ -1076,7 +1076,7 @@ static int store_object(
>> >  		return 1;
>> >  	}
>> >  
>> > -	if (last && last->data.buf && last->depth < max_depth
>> > +	if (last && last->data.len && last->data.buf && last->depth < max_depth
>> >  		&& dat->len > the_hash_algo->rawsz) {
>> >  
>> >  		delta_count_attempts_by_type[type]++;
>> 
>> This is a misleading patch as the title and the proposed log message
>> both talk about "attempts are counted but we didn't actually do
>> anything", implying that the only problem is that the counter is not
>> aligned with reality.  The fact that the post-context we see here
>> only shows the "counting" part does not help us, either.
>> 
>> But the next line in the post-context is actually code that does
>> something important, which is ...
>> 
>> 		delta = diff_delta(last->data.buf, last->data.len,
>> 			dat->buf, dat->len,
>> 			&deltalen, dat->len - the_hash_algo->rawsz);
>> 	} else
>> 		delta = NULL;
>> 
>> 
>> ... and makes the reader realize that the change itself is much
>> better than the patch with 3-line context, the title, and the
>> proposed log message advertises it as ;-)
>> 
>> How about selling it this way instead?
>> 
>> 	fast-import: do not call diff_delta() with empty buffer
>> 
>> 	We know diff_delta() returns NULL, saying "no good delta
>> 	exists for it", when fed an empty data.  Check the length of
>> 	the data in the caller to avoid such a call.  
>> 
>> 	This incidentally reduces the number of attempted deltification
>> 	we see in the final statistics.
>> 
>> or something like that?
>
> Fair enough. Do you want me to send a v2 with this description?

For a single-patch topic like this one, if you like what was in the e-mail verbatim, saying so is sufficient, as I can just use the material to run "git commit --amend". For anything more involved (e.g. "oh, then insert a code to do this before that function" and/or a fix to an earlier patch in a multi-patch series), I'd prefer a re-submission, which can be processed just the same way as any other new topic.

Thanks.

← back to recent threads