From: Lars Schneider Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:31:48 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/12] pkt-line: extract set_packet_header() Message-ID: <02E1DAD2-8CE7-4A5C-AD28-9E08F2414BDF@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: > On 04 Aug 2016, at 18:14, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Jeff King writes: > >> The cost of write() may vary on other platforms, but the cost of memcpy >> generally shouldn't. So I'm inclined to say that it is not really worth >> micro-optimizing the interface. >> >> I think the other issue is that format_packet() only lets you send >> string data via "%s", so it cannot be used for arbitrary data that may >> contain NULs. So we do need _some_ other interface to let you send a raw >> data packet, and it's going to look similar to the direct_packet_write() >> thing. > > OK. That is a much better argument than "I already stuff the length > bytes in my buffer" (which will invite "How about stop doing that?") > to justify a new "I have N bytes of data, send it out", whose > signature would look more like write(2) and deserve to be called > packet_write() but unfortunately the name is taken by what should > have called packet_fmt() or something, but that squats on a good > name packet_write(). Sigh. "Sigh" means, a series preparation patch that renames "packet_write()" to "paket_write_fmt()" would not be a good idea? It is used 59 times currently... - Lars