Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] roll back locks in various code paths

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 2, 2018, 10:49 UTC
Message-ID: <20180302104904.GC11074@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180301204020.24406-1-martin.agren@gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:40:20PM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> After thinking about it, I tend to agree. That rewrite loses an
> indentation level and makes it a bit clearer that we have two steps,
> "maybe bail" and "write". But at the cost of duplicating logic -- after
> all, those two steps are very closely related, so there's no need to
> artificially separate them.
> 
> Here it is again, without that hunk, and without the commit message
> claim that it'd be a good thing to have just a few uses of
> "active_cache_changed" remaining.

Thanks, this version looks good to me. The name SKIP_IF_UNCHANGED is generic and may result in clashes down the road. But then so is the name COMMIT_LOCK. I'm OK to punt on that until we do see such a collision, at which point we may want to provide a consistent namespace for these flags.

-Peff