Re: [PATCH v5 05/15] pkt-line: add packet_write_gently_fmt()
- From
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 10, 2016, 17:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <2B2AC073-95AD-42E9-AD3A-23E8E13C66DE@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqpopg5yqf.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
Show 31 quoted lines
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 19:18, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:04:01PM +0200, larsxschneider@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> +int packet_write_gently_fmt(int fd, const char *fmt, ...)
>>> +{
>>> + static struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>>> + va_list args;
>>> +
>>> + strbuf_reset(&buf);
>>> + va_start(args, fmt);
>>> + format_packet(1, &buf, fmt, args);
>>> + va_end(args);
>>> + packet_trace(buf.buf + 4, buf.len - 4, 1);
>>> + return (write_in_full(fd, buf.buf, buf.len) == buf.len ? 0 : -1);
>>> +}
>>
>> Could the end of this function just be:
>>
>> return packet_write_gently(fd, buf.buf, buf.len);
>>
>> ? I guess we'd prefer to avoid that, because it incurs an extra
>> memmove() of the data.
>>
>> Similarly, I'd think this could share code with the non-gentle form
>> (which should be able to just call this and die() if returns an error).
>> Though sometimes the va_list transformation makes that awkward.
>
> Yes.Peff just posted that he tried the shared code idea but the result ended up ugly.
> Also regarding the naming, please have "_gently" at the end; that is > how all other function families with _gently variant are named, I > think.
OK, I will rename them.
Thanks, Lars