| Message ID | 20220110184134.18675-1-martin.agren@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 97d6fb5a1f5c854d87fd3fd98722c469a9195a46 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cache.h: drop duplicate `ensure_full_index()` declaration | expand |
Martin Ågren wrote: > There are two identical declarations of `ensure_full_index()` in > cache.h. > > Commit 3964fc2aae ("sparse-index: add guard to ensure full index", > 2021-03-30) provided an empty implementation of `ensure_full_index()`, > declaring it in a new file sparse-index.h. When commit 4300f8442a > ("sparse-index: implement ensure_full_index()", 2021-03-30) fleshed out > the implementation, it added an identical declaration to cache.h. > > Then 118a2e8bde ("cache: move ensure_full_index() to cache.h", > 2021-04-01) favored having the declaration in cache.h. Because of the > double declaration, at that point we could have just dropped the one in > sparse-index.h, but instead it got moved to cache.h. > > As a result, cache.h contains the exact same function declaration twice. > Drop the one under "/* Name hashing */", in favor of the one under > "/* Initialize and use the cache information */". > > Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> > --- > cache.h | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h > index 5d7463e6fb..281f00ab1b 100644 > --- a/cache.h > +++ b/cache.h > @@ -350,8 +350,6 @@ void add_name_hash(struct index_state *istate, struct cache_entry *ce); > void remove_name_hash(struct index_state *istate, struct cache_entry *ce); > void free_name_hash(struct index_state *istate); > > -void ensure_full_index(struct index_state *istate); > - > /* Cache entry creation and cleanup */ > > /* Thanks for cleaning up the duplicate, looks good to me!
Victoria Dye <vdye@github.com> writes: > Martin Ågren wrote: >> There are two identical declarations of `ensure_full_index()` in >> cache.h. >> >> Commit 3964fc2aae ("sparse-index: add guard to ensure full index", >> 2021-03-30) provided an empty implementation of `ensure_full_index()`, >> declaring it in a new file sparse-index.h. When commit 4300f8442a >> ("sparse-index: implement ensure_full_index()", 2021-03-30) fleshed out >> the implementation, it added an identical declaration to cache.h. >> >> Then 118a2e8bde ("cache: move ensure_full_index() to cache.h", >> 2021-04-01) favored having the declaration in cache.h. Because of the >> double declaration, at that point we could have just dropped the one in >> sparse-index.h, but instead it got moved to cache.h. >> >> As a result, cache.h contains the exact same function declaration twice. >> Drop the one under "/* Name hashing */", in favor of the one under >> "/* Initialize and use the cache information */". >> >> Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> >> --- >> cache.h | 2 -- >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h >> index 5d7463e6fb..281f00ab1b 100644 >> --- a/cache.h >> +++ b/cache.h >> @@ -350,8 +350,6 @@ void add_name_hash(struct index_state *istate, struct cache_entry *ce); >> void remove_name_hash(struct index_state *istate, struct cache_entry *ce); >> void free_name_hash(struct index_state *istate); >> >> -void ensure_full_index(struct index_state *istate); >> - >> /* Cache entry creation and cleanup */ >> >> /* > > Thanks for cleaning up the duplicate, looks good to me! Thanks, both.
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: >> Thanks for cleaning up the duplicate, looks good to me! > > Thanks, both. This is not urgent at all, given that we are about to enter the pre-release stabilization period and patches that might result from this message would become lower priority, but there are a couple of duplicate declarations, which I'll mention in order to help people to come back to them later. * trace2_cmd_exit_fl() was added to git-compat-util.h and to trace2.h by ee4512ed (trace2: create new combined trace facility, 2019-02-22). Logically it belongs to the latter. Moving inclusion of the latter from <cache.h> to <git-compat-util.h> might be the lowest-cost fix, but there may be ramifications. * xdl_emit_diff() is declared in xdiff/xdiffi.h and xdiff/xemit.h; I wonder if there is a caller that only includes one but not the other header. As they came from the same upstream-import commit, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h index 5d7463e6fb..281f00ab1b 100644 --- a/cache.h +++ b/cache.h @@ -350,8 +350,6 @@ void add_name_hash(struct index_state *istate, struct cache_entry *ce); void remove_name_hash(struct index_state *istate, struct cache_entry *ce); void free_name_hash(struct index_state *istate); -void ensure_full_index(struct index_state *istate); - /* Cache entry creation and cleanup */ /*
There are two identical declarations of `ensure_full_index()` in cache.h. Commit 3964fc2aae ("sparse-index: add guard to ensure full index", 2021-03-30) provided an empty implementation of `ensure_full_index()`, declaring it in a new file sparse-index.h. When commit 4300f8442a ("sparse-index: implement ensure_full_index()", 2021-03-30) fleshed out the implementation, it added an identical declaration to cache.h. Then 118a2e8bde ("cache: move ensure_full_index() to cache.h", 2021-04-01) favored having the declaration in cache.h. Because of the double declaration, at that point we could have just dropped the one in sparse-index.h, but instead it got moved to cache.h. As a result, cache.h contains the exact same function declaration twice. Drop the one under "/* Name hashing */", in favor of the one under "/* Initialize and use the cache information */". Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> --- cache.h | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)