Re: [PATCH 3/3] raw_object_store: drop extra pointer to replace_map

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: May 13, 2025, 09:48 UTC
Message-ID: <aCMVfHbB7pJ6Mo4j@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <20250512185233.GC1276214@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 02:52:33PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> We store the replacement data in an oidmap, which is itself a pointer in
> the raw_object_store struct. But there's no need for an extra pointer
> indirection here. It is always allocated and initialized along with the
> containing struct, and we never check it for NULL-ness.
> 
> Let's embed the map directly in the struct, which is simpler and avoids
> extra pointer chasing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> This one may be more subjective, but IMHO it's good to avoid extra
> pointers when we can.

Yup, I agree it is a sensible step. There is no good reason why the map should be allocated, so let's just not.

All of these cleanups in this series look good to me. Thanks!

Patrick