Re: [PATCH/RFC] make the new block-sha1 the default

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Aug 25, 2009, 17:33 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0908251323280.6044@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <7vprakpett.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:04:37PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> >> ... and remove support for linking against the openssl SHA1 code.
> >> 
> >> The block-sha1 implementation is not significantly worse and sometimes 
> >> even faster than the openssl SHA1 implementation.  This allows for
> >
> > Is there a reason not to leave the option of linking against openssl?
> 
> I think it is a valid question.  Why remove the _option_?

Indeed, there is no value in limiting the choice.

> I would certainly understand it if you made BLK_SHA1 the _default_, though.

Since this is a RFC, and because this is not a clear choice, I'll simply let others play with it and see for themselves. Suffice to compile git with or without NO_OPENSSL defined. Some people (such as Jeff) are finding the openssl SHA1 faster (irrespective of the -O0 issue), whereas Linus simply hammered on the block-sha1 version until it was faster than openssl for him (this is faster for me as well, on X86 and ARM). Also those who initially found openssl to put a significant overhead on the dynamic linking should probably perform more measurements with and without NO_OPENSSL again. If more positive results are presented then changing the default might make sense.

Nicolas