Re: [PATCH 5/5] support writing uncompressed loose object

> Liu Yubao <yubao.liu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Liu Yubao <yubao.liu@gmail.com>
> 
> IMHO, this needs more description in the commit message.
> 
>> diff --git a/sha1_file.c b/sha1_file.c
>> index 05a9fa3..053b564 100644
>> --- a/sha1_file.c
>> +++ b/sha1_file.c
>> @@ -2328,7 +2328,7 @@ static int create_tmpfile(char *buffer, size_t bufsiz, const char *filename)
>>  }
>>  
>>  static int write_loose_object(const unsigned char *sha1, char *hdr, int hdrlen,
>> -			      void *buf, unsigned long len, time_t mtime)
>> +			      void *buf, unsigned long len, time_t mtime, int dont_deflate)
> 
> Passing this as an argument is pointless.  It should be a repository
> wide configuration option in core, so you can declare it a static and
> allow git_config to populate it.  Defaulting to 1 (no compression)
> like you do elsewhere in the patch isn't good.
> 

> I'm still against this file format change.  The series itself isn't
> that bad, and the buffer overflow catch in parse_sha1_header()
> may be something worthwhile fixing.  But I'm still not sold that
> introducing a new loose object format is worth it.
> 
> I'd rather use a binary header encoding like the new-style/in-pack
> format rather than the older style text headers.  Its faster to
> parse for one thing.
> 

> Your changes in the reading code cause a copy of the buffer we
> mmap()'d.  That sort of ruins your argument that this change is
> worthwhile because concurrent processes on the same host can mmap the
> same buffer and save memory.  We're still copying the buffer anyway.
> I probably should have commented on that in patch 4/5, but I just
> realized it, so I'm saying it here.
>