Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] userdiff: add and use for_each_userdiff_driver()
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2021-03-24 19:58:23
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
Our callback function does _one_ type of selection (based on a "type" parameter), but not another (based on the name). That feels inconsistent, but is also the reason we have this awkward struct.
I wrote a very similar review but did not send it out, as I couldn't pinpoint where the awkwardness come from exactly.
Part of my confusion is the name: this is not something to be generically used with for_each_userdiff_driver(), but rather a type unique to find_by_namelen() to be passed through the opaque void pointer. So "struct find_by_namelen_data" would have been a lot more enlightening.
Yes. The callback parameter being "void *" is the API, and it is just this user that uses this particular structure. And while "type" could also be made a part of this structure and have the API always iterate over all entries regardless of "type", i.e. the callback function could be the one responsible for finding the entries in the table for one particular type, it is understandable that potential callers can be helped by having the pre-filtering based on the "type" thing on the API side.
quoted
+ if (!strncmp(driver->name, cb_data->k, cb_data->len) && + !driver->name[cb_data->len]) { + cb_data->driver = driver; + return -1; /* found it! */ }This "return -1" took me a while to grok, and the comment didn't help all that much. The point is to stop traversing the list, but "-1" to me signals error. I think returning "1" might be a bit more idiomatic, but also a comment that says "tell the caller to stop iterating" would have been more clear.
And the fact that it becomes the return value of "for_each_()" iterator does not quite help to use a negative value, implying there was some error condition X-<.
Perhaps it would make more sense as: USERDIFF_DRIVER_TYPE_BUILTIN = 1<<0, USERDIFF_DRIVER_TYPE_CUSTOM = 1<<0, USERDIFF_DRIVER_TYPE_ALL = USERDIFF_DRIVER_TYPE_BUILTIN | USERDIFF_DRIVER_TYPE_CUSTOM Or the one caller who wants "ALL" could even do the OR themselves.
Great minds think alike ;-)
I do kind of wonder if there's much value in having a single function with a type field at all, though, given that there's no overlap in the implementation. Would separate "for_each_custom" and "for_each_builtin" functions make sense? And then the existing caller would just call them sequentially.
Or a single for_each_driver() that gives <name, length, type> tuple to the callback function, iterating over all drivers regardless of the type.