Re: [PATCH] reftable: honor core.fsync
Hi Junio,
On 23 Jan 2024, at 14:31, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> "John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This commits adds a flush function pointer as a new member of
>> reftable_writer because we are not sure that the first argument to the
>> *write function pointer always contains a file descriptor. In the case of
>> strbuf_add_void, the first argument is a buffer. This way, we can pass
>> in a corresponding flush function that knows how to flush depending on
>> which writer is being used.
>
> A comment and a half.
>
> * Can't the new "how to flush" go to the write-option structure?
> If you represent "no flush" as a NULL pointer in the flush member,
> most of the changes to the _test files can go, no?
That's a good option and cuts down on code changes. Thanks for the suggestion.
Show 14 quoted lines
>
> * For a function
>
> int func(int ac, char **av);
>
> a literal pointer to it can legally be written as either
>
> int (*funcp)(int, char **) = &func;
> int (*funcp)(int, char **) = func;
>
> but it is my understanding that this codebase prefers the latter,
> a tradition which goes back to 2005 when Linus was still writing
> a lot of code, i.e. the identifier that is the name of the
> function, without & in front.
John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>