Re: [PATCH 3/6] index-pack: remove redundant child field

2019-10-16 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 04:44:19PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > -static void prune_base_data(struct base_data *retain) > +static void prune_base_data(struct base_data *youngest_child) > { > struct base_data *b; > struct thread_local *data = get_thread_data(); > - for (b = data->ba

Re: [PATCH 3/6] index-pack: remove redundant child field

2019-10-16 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:02:29PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > On 10/9/2019 7:44 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > > Instead, recompute ancestry if we ever need to reclaim memory. > > > > I find this message lacking in important details: > > > > 1. Where do we recompute ancestry? > > 2. What are th

Re: [PATCH 3/6] index-pack: remove redundant child field

2019-10-10 Thread Jonathan Tan
> On 10/9/2019 7:44 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > Instead, recompute ancestry if we ever need to reclaim memory. > > I find this message lacking in important details: > > 1. Where do we recompute ancestry? > 2. What are the performance implications of this change? > 3. Why is it important that you

Re: [PATCH 3/6] index-pack: remove redundant child field

2019-10-10 Thread Derrick Stolee
On 10/9/2019 7:44 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > Instead, recompute ancestry if we ever need to reclaim memory. I find this message lacking in important details: 1. Where do we recompute ancestry? 2. What are the performance implications of this change? 3. Why is it important that you construct a stac

[PATCH 3/6] index-pack: remove redundant child field

2019-10-09 Thread Jonathan Tan
Instead, recompute ancestry if we ever need to reclaim memory. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan --- builtin/index-pack.c | 41 ++--- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/builtin/index-pack.c b/builtin/index-pack.c index 99f6e2957f..35f7f9