Re: [PATCHv2] connect: display connection progress

From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
Date: May 10, 2007, 12:25 UTC
Message-ID: <20070510122550.GJ13655@mellanox.co.il>
In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0705100519i3028fbc4y25e7c407c7c8216@mail.gmail.com>

Show 36 quoted lines

> Quoting Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] connect: display connection progress
> 
> On 5/10/07, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> >> Quoting Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>:
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] connect: display connection progress
> >>
> >> On 5/10/07, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> >> >-static int git_tcp_connect_sock(char *host)
> >> >+static int git_tcp_connect_sock(char *host, int flags)
> >>
> >> There is only one bit of flags ever used. What are the others for?
> >
> >Hmm, I thought it's easier to read
> >git_tcp_connect_sock(host, NET_QUIET)
> 
> It is easier to read. "int flags" isn't easier to understand.
> 
> >> Why use negative logic?
> >> What was wrong with plain "int verbose"?
> >
> >I want the default to report connections, and -q
> >to silence them. Maybe "int quiet"?
> 
> It depends. "Quiet" is negative, which automatically
> makes the logic harder to follow (for humans, at least),
> and you had to put negations all over git_tcp_connect,
> exactly because the meaning is exactly the opposite to
> what you need.
> 
> >> What addresses were tried by connect?
> >
> >You are speaking about your patch reporting the IP on failure?
> 
> Yes. Not on failure (not only). Every time an address is tried
> to connect.

Why not only on failure? IP addresses look ugly.

> >I think it makes sense, but it's a separate issue, isn't it?
> 
> You are just about to make git_tcp_connect verbose,
> are you not?

Only if the flag is set. So git-fetch without -q qill be more verbose - but it already spits out a fair amount of data on screen.

-- 
MST