Re: [PATCH 2/2] do not stream large files to pack when filters are in use

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2012, 21:20 UTC
Message-ID: <7vfwe0x726.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120224210134.GA22177@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 24 quoted lines

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:48:10PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:03:17PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> 
>> > > -	else if (size <= big_file_threshold || type != OBJ_BLOB)
>> > > +	else if (size <= big_file_threshold || type != OBJ_BLOB ||
>> > > +		 convert_to_git(path, NULL, 0, NULL, 0))
>> > 
>> > Nice.  It would be even nicer to give a readability macro whose name makes
>> > it clear that this is a query (unfortunately we cannot add '?' at the end
>> > of the function name) and not a conversion.  Any name suggestions?
>> ...
> I.e., you could call it like this:
>
>   convert_to_git(path, buf, len, NULL, 0);
>
> and find out the real answer, including inspecting buf, about whether
> we would convert. Or you could also use a NULL buffer to get the
> pessimistic "we might convert" case.
>
> I don't think it really matters that much, as I am introducing only one
> caller. I'm not sure if any other code paths would care about this
> speculative "maybe we would convert" question, so perhaps it is simply
> over-engineering.

I agree checking if dst is NULL makes a lot more sense than checking if the src is NULL.

The reason I said "readability" macro was *NOT* because of these NULLs looked unsightly. I wanted the function name to tell "We are *NOT* actually converting anything here at this point" to the readers.

I am perfectly fine to keep the source side of the parameters in the readability macro, even if this partcular caller may have to spell NULL and 0 there.

Thanks.