Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] read_loose_refs(): read refs using resolve_ref_recursively()

> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> [...]
> 
> OK, but one thing puzzles me...
> 
>> @@ -1390,27 +1390,6 @@ static struct ref_store *main_ref_store;
>>  static struct hashmap submodule_ref_stores;
>>  
>>  /*
>> - * Return the ref_store instance for the specified submodule (or the
>> - * main repository if submodule is NULL). If that ref_store hasn't
>> - * been initialized yet, return NULL.
>> - */
>> -static struct ref_store *lookup_ref_store(const char *submodule)
>> -{
>> -	struct submodule_hash_entry *entry;
>> -
>> -	if (!submodule)
>> -		return main_ref_store;
>> -
>> -	if (!submodule_ref_stores.tablesize)
>> -		/* It's initialized on demand in register_ref_store(). */
>> -		return NULL;
>> -
>> -	entry = hashmap_get_from_hash(&submodule_ref_stores,
>> -				      strhash(submodule), submodule);
>> -	return entry ? entry->refs : NULL;
>> -}
>> -
>> -/*
>>   * Register the specified ref_store to be the one that should be used
>>   * for submodule (or the main repository if submodule is NULL). It is
>>   * a fatal error to call this function twice for the same submodule.
>> @@ -1451,6 +1430,27 @@ static struct ref_store *ref_store_init(const char *submodule)
>>  	return refs;
>>  }
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * Return the ref_store instance for the specified submodule (or the
>> + * main repository if submodule is NULL). If that ref_store hasn't
>> + * been initialized yet, return NULL.
>> + */
>> +static struct ref_store *lookup_ref_store(const char *submodule)
>> +{
>> +	struct submodule_hash_entry *entry;
>> +
>> +	if (!submodule)
>> +		return main_ref_store;
>> +
>> +	if (!submodule_ref_stores.tablesize)
>> +		/* It's initialized on demand in register_ref_store(). */
>> +		return NULL;
>> +
>> +	entry = hashmap_get_from_hash(&submodule_ref_stores,
>> +				      strhash(submodule), submodule);
>> +	return entry ? entry->refs : NULL;
>> +}
>> +
> 
> I somehow thought that we had an early "reorder the code" step to
> avoid hunks like these?  Am I missing some subtle changes made while
> moving the function down?