Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 12:49:58PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > >> Another option would be to use a static strbuf. Then we're only wasting >> heap, and even then only as much as we need (we'd still manually cap it >> at LARGE_PACKET_MAX since that's what the protocol dictates). This would >> also make packet_buf_write more efficient (right now it formats into a >> static buffer, and then copies the result into a strbuf; probably not >> measurably important, but silly nonetheless). > > Below is what that would look like. It's obviously a much more invasive > change, but I think the result is nice.
Yes, indeed. Is there any reason why we shouldn't go with this variant, other than "it touches a bit more lines" that I am not seeing? > Let's switch to using a strbuf, with a hard-limit of > LARGE_PACKET_MAX (which is specified by the protocol). This > matches the size of the readers, as of 74543a0 (pkt-line: > provide a LARGE_PACKET_MAX static buffer, 2013-02-20). > Versions of git older than that will complain about our > large packets, but it's really no worse than the current > behavior. Right now the sender barfs with "impossibly long > line" trying to send the packet, and afterwards the reader > will barf with "protocol error: bad line length %d", which > is arguably better anyway. Anything older than 1.8.3 is affected by this, but only when the sending side has to send a large packet. It is between failing because the sender cannot send a large packet and failing because the receiver does not expect such a large packet to come, and either way the whole operation will fail anyway, so there is no net loss. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
