Re: [PATCH 4/5] ref_transaction_commit(): remove the local flags variables
On 04/24/2015 11:51 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Michael Haggerty > wrote: >> Instead, work directly with update->flags. This has the advantage that >> the REF_DELETING bit, set in the first loop, can be read in the third >> loop instead of having to compute the same expression again. Plus, it >> was kindof confusing having both update->flags and flags, which > > s/kindof/kind of/ > >> sometimes had different values. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty Hehe thanks for looking over my scribblings. In this case, neither "kindof" nor "kind of" is in fact correct English. I used the slang word "kindof" (sometimes spelled "kinda") to mean "somewhat", I guess because "somewhat" sounded too formal for my slapdash opinion. But I suppose it's kindof thoughtless to use slang in commit messages :-), especially given that they are also meant for people for whom English is a second language (let alone sloppy American English). I suggest s/kindof/potentially/, at least until I have time to submit a patch to the English language to make "kindof" a reputable word :-) Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu -- 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
Re: [PATCH 4/5] ref_transaction_commit(): remove the local flags variables
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > Instead, work directly with update->flags. This has the advantage that > the REF_DELETING bit, set in the first loop, can be read in the third > loop instead of having to compute the same expression again. Plus, it > was kindof confusing having both update->flags and flags, which s/kindof/kind of/ > sometimes had different values. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty -- 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
Re: [PATCH 4/5] ref_transaction_commit(): remove the local flags variables
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:15:09PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > Hmm. I think this is losing the distinction of "flags the caller has > > passed in to us" versus "flags we are using locally only during the > > transaction_commit routine". If callers look at the flags in the > > REF_TRANSACTION_CLOSED state, do they care about seeing these new flags? > > > > My guess is probably not in practice, and "leaking" these flags is an > > acceptable tradeoff for keeping the transaction_commit function simpler. > > But I haven't looked that closely. > > "struct ref_update" is opaque to callers outside of the refs module, and > ref_update::flags is not read anywhere outside of > ref_transaction_commit() (and its value is passed to > lock_ref_sha1_basic()). So I don't think we have to be shy about storing > our own internal information there. > > In fact, REF_DELETING, REF_ISPRUNING, REF_HAVE_NEW, and REF_HAVE_OLD are > also private to the refs module. Thanks for checking. If nobody is affected (and is not likely to be), I agree it's not worth worrying about. > I suppose we could mask out all the "private" bits in the flags > parameter passed by the caller, to make sure that the caller hasn't > accidentally set other bits. I think that would be more defensive than > our usual practice, but I don't mind doing it if people think it would > be prudent. I don't think it's necessary. -Peff -- 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
Re: [PATCH 4/5] ref_transaction_commit(): remove the local flags variables
On 04/24/2015 07:30 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:35:48PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> Instead, work directly with update->flags. This has the advantage that >> the REF_DELETING bit, set in the first loop, can be read in the third >> loop instead of having to compute the same expression again. Plus, it >> was kindof confusing having both update->flags and flags, which >> sometimes had different values. > > Hmm. I think this is losing the distinction of "flags the caller has > passed in to us" versus "flags we are using locally only during the > transaction_commit routine". If callers look at the flags in the > REF_TRANSACTION_CLOSED state, do they care about seeing these new flags? > > My guess is probably not in practice, and "leaking" these flags is an > acceptable tradeoff for keeping the transaction_commit function simpler. > But I haven't looked that closely. "struct ref_update" is opaque to callers outside of the refs module, and ref_update::flags is not read anywhere outside of ref_transaction_commit() (and its value is passed to lock_ref_sha1_basic()). So I don't think we have to be shy about storing our own internal information there. In fact, REF_DELETING, REF_ISPRUNING, REF_HAVE_NEW, and REF_HAVE_OLD are also private to the refs module. I suppose we could mask out all the "private" bits in the flags parameter passed by the caller, to make sure that the caller hasn't accidentally set other bits. I think that would be more defensive than our usual practice, but I don't mind doing it if people think it would be prudent. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu -- 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
Re: [PATCH 4/5] ref_transaction_commit(): remove the local flags variables
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:35:48PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > Instead, work directly with update->flags. This has the advantage that > the REF_DELETING bit, set in the first loop, can be read in the third > loop instead of having to compute the same expression again. Plus, it > was kindof confusing having both update->flags and flags, which > sometimes had different values. Hmm. I think this is losing the distinction of "flags the caller has passed in to us" versus "flags we are using locally only during the transaction_commit routine". If callers look at the flags in the REF_TRANSACTION_CLOSED state, do they care about seeing these new flags? My guess is probably not in practice, and "leaking" these flags is an acceptable tradeoff for keeping the transaction_commit function simpler. But I haven't looked that closely. -Peff -- 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
