On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @@ -489,8 +479,8 @@ extern void *read_blob_data_from_index(struct index_state 
> *, const char *, unsig
>  #define CE_MATCH_RACY_IS_DIRTY         02
>  /* do stat comparison even if CE_SKIP_WORKTREE is true */
>  #define CE_MATCH_IGNORE_SKIP_WORKTREE  04
> -extern int ie_match_stat(const struct index_state *, const struct 
> cache_entry *, struct stat *, unsigned int);
> -extern int ie_modified(const struct index_state *, const struct cache_entry 
> *, struct stat *, unsigned int);
> +extern int ie_match_stat(struct index_state *, const struct cache_entry *, 
> struct stat *, unsigned int);
> +extern int ie_modified(struct index_state *, const struct cache_entry *, 
> struct stat *, unsigned int);
>

I would rather we keep "const struct index_state*" if we could. I
tried putting "const" back and found that ce_match_stat_basic() calls
set_istate_ops(), which writes to "struct index_state". Putting
set_istate_ops() in ce_match_stat_basic() may seem convenient, but
does not make much sense (why would a match_stat function update
index_ops?). I think you could move it out and

 - read_index calls set_istate_ops
 - (bonus) discard_index probably should reset "version" field to zero
and clear internal_ops
 - the callers that use index without read_index must call
initialize_index() or something, which in turn calls set_istate_ops.
initialize_index() may take the preferred index version
 - do not let update-index modifies version field directly when
--index-version is given. Wrap it with set_index_version() or
something, so we can do internal conversion from one version to
another if needed
 - remove set_istate_ops in write_index(), we may need internal_ops
long before writing. When write_index is called, internal_ops should
be already initialized
--
Duy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to