Re: [PATCH v10 11/20] index-helper: use watchman to avoid refreshing index with lstat()
From: Ramsay Jones <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-16 02:19:21
On 12/05/16 21:20, David Turner wrote:
From: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <redacted>
[snip]
+/* in ms */
+#define WATCHMAN_TIMEOUT 1000
+
+static int poke_and_wait_for_reply(int fd)
+{
+ struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
+ int ret = -1;
+ struct pollfd pollfd;
+ int bytes_read;
+ char reply_buf[4096];
+ const char *requested_capabilities = "";
+
+#ifdef USE_WATCHMAN
+ requested_capabilities = "watchman";
+#endif
+
+ if (fd < 0)
+ return -1;
+
+ strbuf_addf(&buf, "poke %d %s", getpid(), requested_capabilities);
+ if (packet_write_gently(fd, buf.buf, buf.len))This is not causing a problem or bug, but is none the less not correct - as you know, packet_write_gently() takes a 'printf' like variable argument list. (So, buf.buf is the format specifier and buf.len is an unused arg). I think I would write this as: strbuf_addf(&buf, "poke %d", getpid()); if (requested_capabilities && *requested_capabilities) strbuf_addf(&buf, " %s", requested_capabilities); if (packet_write_gently(fd, "%s", buf.buf)) ... or something similar. [Note, just typing into my email client, so it's not been close to a compiler.]
+ return -1; + if (packet_flush_gently(fd)) + return -1;
Why are you sending a flush packet - doesn't the index-helper simply ignore it? I haven't tried this yet BTW, just reading patches as they float on past... ;-) ATB, Ramsay Jones