Re: [PATCH v3 10/21] read-cache: regenerate shared index if necessary

Christian Couder [off-list ref] writes:

+	case 0:
+		return 1; /* 0% means always write a new shared index */
+	case 100:
+		return 0; /* 100% means never write a new shared index */
+	default:
+		; /* do nothing: just use the configured value */
+	}

Just like you did in 04/21, write "break" to avoid mistakes made in
the future, i.e.

	default:
		break; /* just use the configured value */

+
+	/* Count not shared entries */
+	for (i = 0; i < istate->cache_nr; i++) {
+		struct cache_entry *ce = istate->cache[i];
+		if (!ce->index)
+			not_shared++;
+	}
+
+	return istate->cache_nr * max_split < not_shared * 100;

On a 32-bit arch with 2G int and more than 20 million paths in the
index, multiplying by max_split that can come close to 100 can
theoretically cause integer overflow, but in practice it probably
does not matter.  Or does it?