Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add git-grep threads param

From: John Keeping <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:52:56 +0000

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:25:41PM -0700, Victor Leschuk wrote:
> >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
> >>          [--color[=<when>] | --no-color]
> >>          [--break] [--heading] [-p | --show-function]
> >>          [-A <post-context>] [-B <pre-context>] [-C <context>]
> >> +        [--threads <num>]
> 
> > Is this the best place for this option?  I know the current list isn't
> > sorted in any particular way, but here you're splitting up the set of
> > context options (`-A`, `-B`, `-C` and `-W`).
> 
> Agree, I'll move the option both here and in documentation.
> 
> >> -static int wait_all(void)
> >> +static int wait_all(struct grep_opt *opt)
> 
> > I'm not sure passing a grep_opt in here is the cleanest way to do this.
> > Options are a UI concept and all we care about here is the number of
> > threads.
> 
> > Since `threads` is a global, shouldn't the number of threads be a global
> > as well?  Could we reuse `use_threads` here (possibly renaming it
> > `num_threads`)?
> 
> This thought also crossed my mind, however we already pass grep_opt to
> start_threads() function, so I think passing it to wait_all() is not
> that ugly, and kind of symmetric. And I do not like the idea of
> duplicating same information in different places. What do you think?

The grep_opt in start_threads() is being passed through to run(), so it
seems slightly different to me.  If the threads were being setup in
grep.c (as opposed to builtin/grep.c) then I'd agree that it belongs in
grep_opt, but since this is local to this particular user of the grep
infrastructure adding num_threads to the grep_opt structure at all feels
wrong to me.

Note that I wasn't suggesting passing num_threads as a parameter to
wait_all(), but rather having it as global state that is accessed by
wait_all() in the same way as the `threads` array.

If we rename use_threads to num_threads and just use that, then we only
have the information in one place don't we?