Git Source Code Mirror - This is a publish-only repository and all pull requests are ignored. Please follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches procedure for any of your improvements. https://git-scm.com/
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
git/patch-ids.h

48 lines
1.2 KiB

#ifndef PATCH_IDS_H
#define PATCH_IDS_H
#include "diff.h"
#include "hashmap.h"
struct commit;
struct object_id;
struct repository;
struct patch_id {
struct hashmap_entry ent;
struct object_id patch_id;
struct commit *commit;
};
struct patch_ids {
struct hashmap patches;
struct diff_options diffopts;
};
int commit_patch_id(struct commit *commit, struct diff_options *options,
struct object_id *oid, int, int);
int init_patch_ids(struct repository *, struct patch_ids *);
int free_patch_ids(struct patch_ids *);
patch-ids: handle duplicate hashmap entries This fixes a bug introduced in dfb7a1b4d0 (patch-ids: stop using a hand-rolled hashmap implementation, 2016-07-29) in which git rev-list --cherry-pick A...B will fail to suppress commits reachable from A even if a commit with matching patch-id appears in B. Around the time of that commit, the algorithm for "--cherry-pick" looked something like this: 0. Traverse all of the commits, marking them as being on the left or right side of the symmetric difference. 1. Iterate over the left-hand commits, inserting a patch-id struct for each into a hashmap, and pointing commit->util to the patch-id struct. 2. Iterate over the right-hand commits, checking which are present in the hashmap. If so, we exclude the commit from the output _and_ we mark the patch-id as "seen". 3. Iterate again over the left-hand commits, checking whether commit->util->seen is set; if so, exclude them from the output. At the end, we'll have eliminated commits from both sides that have a matching patch-id on the other side. But there's a subtle assumption here: for any given patch-id, we must have exactly one struct representing it. If two commits from A both have the same patch-id and we allow duplicates in the hashmap, then we run into a problem: a. In step 1, we insert two patch-id structs into the hashmap. b. In step 2, our lookups will find only one of these structs, so only one "seen" flag is marked. c. In step 3, one of the commits in A will have its commit->util->seen set, but the other will not. We'll erroneously output the latter. Prior to dfb7a1b4d0, our hashmap did not allow duplicates. Afterwards, it used hashmap_add(), which explicitly does allow duplicates. At that point, the solution would have been easy: when we are about to add a duplicate, skip doing so and return the existing entry which matches. But it gets more complicated. In 683f17ec44 (patch-ids: replace the seen indicator with a commit pointer, 2016-07-29), our step 3 goes away entirely. Instead, in step 2, when the right-hand side finds a matching patch_id from the left-hand side, we can directly mark the left-hand patch_id->commit to be omitted. Solving that would be easy, too; there's a one-to-many relationship of patch-ids to commits, so we just need to keep a list. But there's more. Commit b3dfeebb92 (rebase: avoid computing unnecessary patch IDs, 2016-07-29) built on that by lazily computing the full patch-ids. So we don't even know when adding to the hashmap whether two commits truly have the same id. We'd have to tentatively assign them a list, and then possibly split them apart (possibly into N new structs) at the moment we compute the real patch-ids. This could work, but it's complicated and error-prone. Instead, let's accept that we may store duplicates, and teach the lookup side to be more clever. Rather than asking for a single matching patch-id, it will need to iterate over all matching patch-ids. This does mean examining every entry in a single hash bucket, but the worst-case for a hash lookup was already doing that. We'll keep the hashmap details out of the caller by providing a simple iteration interface. We can retain the simple has_commit_patch_id() interface for the other callers, but we'll simplify its return value into an integer, rather than returning the patch_id struct. That way they won't be tempted to look at the "commit" field of the return value without iterating. Reported-by: Arnaud Morin <arnaud.morin@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2 years ago
/* Add a patch_id for a single commit to the set. */
struct patch_id *add_commit_patch_id(struct commit *, struct patch_ids *);
patch-ids: handle duplicate hashmap entries This fixes a bug introduced in dfb7a1b4d0 (patch-ids: stop using a hand-rolled hashmap implementation, 2016-07-29) in which git rev-list --cherry-pick A...B will fail to suppress commits reachable from A even if a commit with matching patch-id appears in B. Around the time of that commit, the algorithm for "--cherry-pick" looked something like this: 0. Traverse all of the commits, marking them as being on the left or right side of the symmetric difference. 1. Iterate over the left-hand commits, inserting a patch-id struct for each into a hashmap, and pointing commit->util to the patch-id struct. 2. Iterate over the right-hand commits, checking which are present in the hashmap. If so, we exclude the commit from the output _and_ we mark the patch-id as "seen". 3. Iterate again over the left-hand commits, checking whether commit->util->seen is set; if so, exclude them from the output. At the end, we'll have eliminated commits from both sides that have a matching patch-id on the other side. But there's a subtle assumption here: for any given patch-id, we must have exactly one struct representing it. If two commits from A both have the same patch-id and we allow duplicates in the hashmap, then we run into a problem: a. In step 1, we insert two patch-id structs into the hashmap. b. In step 2, our lookups will find only one of these structs, so only one "seen" flag is marked. c. In step 3, one of the commits in A will have its commit->util->seen set, but the other will not. We'll erroneously output the latter. Prior to dfb7a1b4d0, our hashmap did not allow duplicates. Afterwards, it used hashmap_add(), which explicitly does allow duplicates. At that point, the solution would have been easy: when we are about to add a duplicate, skip doing so and return the existing entry which matches. But it gets more complicated. In 683f17ec44 (patch-ids: replace the seen indicator with a commit pointer, 2016-07-29), our step 3 goes away entirely. Instead, in step 2, when the right-hand side finds a matching patch_id from the left-hand side, we can directly mark the left-hand patch_id->commit to be omitted. Solving that would be easy, too; there's a one-to-many relationship of patch-ids to commits, so we just need to keep a list. But there's more. Commit b3dfeebb92 (rebase: avoid computing unnecessary patch IDs, 2016-07-29) built on that by lazily computing the full patch-ids. So we don't even know when adding to the hashmap whether two commits truly have the same id. We'd have to tentatively assign them a list, and then possibly split them apart (possibly into N new structs) at the moment we compute the real patch-ids. This could work, but it's complicated and error-prone. Instead, let's accept that we may store duplicates, and teach the lookup side to be more clever. Rather than asking for a single matching patch-id, it will need to iterate over all matching patch-ids. This does mean examining every entry in a single hash bucket, but the worst-case for a hash lookup was already doing that. We'll keep the hashmap details out of the caller by providing a simple iteration interface. We can retain the simple has_commit_patch_id() interface for the other callers, but we'll simplify its return value into an integer, rather than returning the patch_id struct. That way they won't be tempted to look at the "commit" field of the return value without iterating. Reported-by: Arnaud Morin <arnaud.morin@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2 years ago
/* Returns true if the patch-id of "commit" is present in the set. */
int has_commit_patch_id(struct commit *commit, struct patch_ids *);
/*
* Iterate over all commits in the set whose patch id matches that of
* "commit", like:
*
* struct patch_id *cur;
* for (cur = patch_id_iter_first(commit, ids);
* cur;
* cur = patch_id_iter_next(cur, ids) {
* ... look at cur->commit
* }
*/
struct patch_id *patch_id_iter_first(struct commit *commit, struct patch_ids *);
struct patch_id *patch_id_iter_next(struct patch_id *cur, struct patch_ids *);
#endif /* PATCH_IDS_H */