Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 0/8] fetch submodules in parallel

From: Ramsay Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 19:55:51 +0100

Hi Stefan,

On 01/10/15 02:54, Stefan Beller wrote:
[snip]

While skimming the interdiff for this series, ...

> diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
> index df84985..28048a7 100644
> --- a/run-command.c
> +++ b/run-command.c
> @@ -863,12 +863,13 @@ struct parallel_processes {
>  
>  	get_next_task_fn get_next_task;
>  	start_failure_fn start_failure;
> -	return_value_fn return_value;
> +	task_finished_fn task_finished;
>  
>  	struct {
>  		unsigned in_use : 1;
>  		struct child_process process;
>  		struct strbuf err;
> +		void *data;
>  	} *children;
>  	/*
>  	 * The struct pollfd is logically part of *children,
> @@ -882,9 +883,10 @@ struct parallel_processes {
>  	struct strbuf buffered_output; /* of finished children */
>  } parallel_processes_struct;
>  
> -static int default_start_failure(void *data,
> -				 struct child_process *cp,
> -				 struct strbuf *err)
> +static int default_start_failure(struct child_process *cp,
> +				 struct strbuf *err,
> +				 void *pp_cb,
> +				 void *pp_task_cb)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  
> @@ -895,10 +897,11 @@ static int default_start_failure(void *data,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int default_return_value(void *data,
> -				struct child_process *cp,
> -				struct strbuf *err,
> -				int result)
> +static int default_task_finished(int result,
> +				 struct child_process *cp,
> +				 struct strbuf *err,
> +				 void *pp_cb,
> +				 void *pp_task_cb)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  
> @@ -930,10 +933,11 @@ static void handle_children_on_signal(int signo)
>  	raise(signo);
>  }
>  
> -static struct parallel_processes *pp_init(int n, void *data,
> +static struct parallel_processes *pp_init(int n,
>  					  get_next_task_fn get_next_task,
>  					  start_failure_fn start_failure,
> -					  return_value_fn return_value)
> +					  task_finished_fn task_finished,
> +					  void *data)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	struct parallel_processes *pp = &parallel_processes_struct;
> @@ -948,7 +952,7 @@ static struct parallel_processes *pp_init(int n, void *data,
>  	pp->get_next_task = get_next_task;
>  
>  	pp->start_failure = start_failure ? start_failure : default_start_failure;
> -	pp->return_value = return_value ? return_value : default_return_value;
> +	pp->task_finished = task_finished ? task_finished : default_task_finished;
>  
>  	pp->nr_processes = 0;
>  	pp->output_owner = 0;
> @@ -1006,15 +1010,17 @@ static int pp_start_one(struct parallel_processes *pp)
>  	if (i == pp->max_processes)
>  		die("BUG: bookkeeping is hard");
>  
> -	if (!pp->get_next_task(pp->data,
> +	if (!pp->get_next_task(&pp->children[i].data,
>  			       &pp->children[i].process,
> -			       &pp->children[i].err))
> +			       &pp->children[i].err,
> +			       pp->data))
>  		return 1;

... the above hunk caught my eye. I don't know that it matters that
much, but since you have reordered parameters on some functions, should
pp->get_next_task() take the 'task_cb' as the last parameter, rather than
the first?

I have not looked at the final result yet (just the interdiff), so please
just ignore the above if I've missed something obvious. :-D

ATB,
Ramsay Jones