Re: [PATCH v3 00/27] Revamp the attribute system; another round

2017-02-09 Thread Junio C Hamano
Brandon Williams writes: > At least v3 gets the attribute system to a state where further > improvements should be relatively easy to make. And now as long as each > thread has a unique attr_check structure, multiple callers can exist > inside the attribute system at the same

Re: [PATCH v3 00/27] Revamp the attribute system; another round

2017-02-09 Thread Brandon Williams
On 02/02, Junio C Hamano wrote: > prepare the array > for path taken from some set: > do_something(the array, path) > > That way, do_something() do not have to keep allocating, > initializing and destroying the array. > > But after looking at the

Re: [PATCH v3 00/27] Revamp the attribute system; another round

2017-02-02 Thread Junio C Hamano
Brandon Williams writes: > Per some of the discussion online and off I locally broke up up the question > and answer and I wasn't very thrilled with the outcome for a number of > reasons. > > 1. The API is more complex > 2. Performance hit > ... > Given the above, v3

[PATCH v3 00/27] Revamp the attribute system; another round

2017-01-27 Thread Brandon Williams
Per some of the discussion online and off I locally broke up up the question and answer and I wasn't very thrilled with the outcome for a number of reasons. 1. The API is more complex. Callers needs to have two structures allocated instead of one, one can be shared read-only while the other