| Message ID | 44386818ce681da02f00a498acf66043aa55558e.1711109214.git.ps@pks.im (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | reftable: improvements for the `binsearch()` mechanism | expand |
On 24/03/22 01:22PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > It is comparatively hard to understand how exactly the binary search > over refnames works given that the function and variable names are not > exactly easy to grasp. Rename them to make this more obvious. This > should not result in any change in behaviour. > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> > --- > reftable/refname.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/reftable/refname.c b/reftable/refname.c > index 64eba1b886..9ec488d727 100644 > --- a/reftable/refname.c > +++ b/reftable/refname.c > @@ -12,15 +12,15 @@ > #include "refname.h" > #include "reftable-iterator.h" > > -struct find_arg { > - char **names; > - const char *want; > +struct refname_needle_lesseq_args { > + char **haystack; > + const char *needle; > }; I agree that the previous `names` and `want` are a bit ambiguous. What do you think about `refnames` and `target_refname` instead? -Justin
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 01:55:17PM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote: > On 24/03/22 01:22PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > It is comparatively hard to understand how exactly the binary search > > over refnames works given that the function and variable names are not > > exactly easy to grasp. Rename them to make this more obvious. This > > should not result in any change in behaviour. > > > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> > > --- > > reftable/refname.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/reftable/refname.c b/reftable/refname.c > > index 64eba1b886..9ec488d727 100644 > > --- a/reftable/refname.c > > +++ b/reftable/refname.c > > @@ -12,15 +12,15 @@ > > #include "refname.h" > > #include "reftable-iterator.h" > > > > -struct find_arg { > > - char **names; > > - const char *want; > > +struct refname_needle_lesseq_args { > > + char **haystack; > > + const char *needle; > > }; > > I agree that the previous `names` and `want` are a bit ambiguous. What > do you think about `refnames` and `target_refname` instead? As said in the preceding commit I was rather aiming for consistency across the callsites, so I'll keep this as-is for now. I'm happy to be overruled though if others feel the same way. Patrick
diff --git a/reftable/refname.c b/reftable/refname.c index 64eba1b886..9ec488d727 100644 --- a/reftable/refname.c +++ b/reftable/refname.c @@ -12,15 +12,15 @@ #include "refname.h" #include "reftable-iterator.h" -struct find_arg { - char **names; - const char *want; +struct refname_needle_lesseq_args { + char **haystack; + const char *needle; }; -static int find_name(size_t k, void *arg) +static int refname_needle_lesseq(size_t k, void *arg) { - struct find_arg *f_arg = arg; - return strcmp(f_arg->names[k], f_arg->want) >= 0; + struct refname_needle_lesseq_args *f_arg = arg; + return strcmp(f_arg->needle, f_arg->haystack[k]) <= 0; } static int modification_has_ref(struct modification *mod, const char *name) @@ -29,21 +29,21 @@ static int modification_has_ref(struct modification *mod, const char *name) int err = 0; if (mod->add_len > 0) { - struct find_arg arg = { - .names = mod->add, - .want = name, + struct refname_needle_lesseq_args arg = { + .haystack = mod->add, + .needle = name, }; - size_t idx = binsearch(mod->add_len, find_name, &arg); + size_t idx = binsearch(mod->add_len, refname_needle_lesseq, &arg); if (idx < mod->add_len && !strcmp(mod->add[idx], name)) return 0; } if (mod->del_len > 0) { - struct find_arg arg = { - .names = mod->del, - .want = name, + struct refname_needle_lesseq_args arg = { + .haystack = mod->del, + .needle = name, }; - size_t idx = binsearch(mod->del_len, find_name, &arg); + size_t idx = binsearch(mod->del_len, refname_needle_lesseq, &arg); if (idx < mod->del_len && !strcmp(mod->del[idx], name)) return 1; } @@ -71,11 +71,11 @@ static int modification_has_ref_with_prefix(struct modification *mod, int err = 0; if (mod->add_len > 0) { - struct find_arg arg = { - .names = mod->add, - .want = prefix, + struct refname_needle_lesseq_args arg = { + .haystack = mod->add, + .needle = prefix, }; - size_t idx = binsearch(mod->add_len, find_name, &arg); + size_t idx = binsearch(mod->add_len, refname_needle_lesseq, &arg); if (idx < mod->add_len && !strncmp(prefix, mod->add[idx], strlen(prefix))) goto done; @@ -90,11 +90,11 @@ static int modification_has_ref_with_prefix(struct modification *mod, goto done; if (mod->del_len > 0) { - struct find_arg arg = { - .names = mod->del, - .want = ref.refname, + struct refname_needle_lesseq_args arg = { + .haystack = mod->del, + .needle = ref.refname, }; - size_t idx = binsearch(mod->del_len, find_name, &arg); + size_t idx = binsearch(mod->del_len, refname_needle_lesseq, &arg); if (idx < mod->del_len && !strcmp(ref.refname, mod->del[idx])) continue;
It is comparatively hard to understand how exactly the binary search over refnames works given that the function and variable names are not exactly easy to grasp. Rename them to make this more obvious. This should not result in any change in behaviour. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> --- reftable/refname.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)