[PATCH 7/7] reftable/reader: add comments to `table_iter_next()`
From: Patrick Steinhardt <hidden>
Date: 2024-02-01 10:25:25
Subsystem:
the rest · Maintainer:
Linus Torvalds
While working on the optimizations in the preceding patches I stumbled upon `table_iter_next()` multiple times. It is quite easy to miss the fact that we don't call `table_iter_next_in_block()` twice, but that the second call is in fact `table_iter_next_block()`. Add comments to explain what exactly is going on here to make things more obvious. While at it, touch up the code to conform to our code style better. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <redacted> --- reftable/reader.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/reftable/reader.c b/reftable/reader.c
index 64dc366fb1..add7d57f0b 100644
--- a/reftable/reader.c
+++ b/reftable/reader.c@@ -357,24 +357,32 @@ static int table_iter_next(struct table_iter *ti, struct reftable_record *rec) while (1) { struct table_iter next = TABLE_ITER_INIT; - int err = 0; - if (ti->is_finished) { + int err; + + if (ti->is_finished) return 1; - } + /* + * Check whether the current block still has more records. If + * so, return it. If the iterator returns positive then the + * current block has been exhausted. + */ err = table_iter_next_in_block(ti, rec); - if (err <= 0) { + if (err <= 0) return err; - } + /* + * Otherwise, we need to continue to the next block in the + * table and retry. If there are no more blocks then the + * iterator is drained. + */ err = table_iter_next_block(&next, ti); - if (err != 0) { - ti->is_finished = 1; - } table_iter_block_done(ti); - if (err != 0) { + if (err) { + ti->is_finished = 1; return err; } + table_iter_copy_from(ti, &next); block_iter_close(&next.bi); }
--
2.43.GIT
Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 833 bytes