From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:36:03 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] introducing oideq()
Message-ID: <4a35886d-b1f5-6d5a-554e-508d838e542e@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180828212126.GA7039@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On 8/28/2018 5:21 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 08:56:21PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
>
>>> Due to the simplicity of the current code and our inlining, the compiler
>>> can usually figure this out for now. So I wouldn't expect this patch to
>>> actually improve performance right away. But as that discussion shows,
>>> we are likely to take a performance hit as we move to more runtime
>>> determination of the_hash_algo parameters. Having these callers use the
>>> more strict form will potentially help us recover that.
>>>
>>> So in that sense we _could_ simply punt on this series until then (and
>>> it's certainly post-v2.19 material). But I think it's worth doing now,
>>> simply from a readability/annotation standpoint. IMHO the resulting code
>>> is more clear (though I've long since taught myself to read !foocmp() as
>>> equality).
>> I would quite like to see this series picked up for v2.20.  If we want
>> to minimize performance regressions with the SHA-256 work, I think it's
>> important.
> Thanks. One of the things I was worried about was causing unnecessary
> conflicts with existing topics, including your work. But if everybody is
> on board, I'd be happy to see this go in early in the next release cycle
> (the longer we wait, the more annoying conflicts Junio has to resolve).

I'm happy to take this change whenever. In my opinion, right after 
v2.19.0 is cut would be a great time to merge it into master.

This v2 is good.

Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>