Re: [PATCH] reftable: honor core.fsync

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 23, 2024, 19:31 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq34unn8x4.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <pull.1654.git.git.1706035870956.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

"John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> This commits adds a flush function pointer as a new member of
> reftable_writer because we are not sure that the first argument to the
> *write function pointer always contains a file descriptor. In the case of
> strbuf_add_void, the first argument is a buffer. This way, we can pass
> in a corresponding flush function that knows how to flush depending on
> which writer is being used.

A comment and a half.

 * Can't the new "how to flush" go to the write-option structure?
   If you represent "no flush" as a NULL pointer in the flush member,
   most of the changes to the _test files can go, no?

 * For a function

	int func(int ac, char **av);

   a literal pointer to it can legally be written as either

	int (*funcp)(int, char **) = &func;
	int (*funcp)(int, char **) = func;

   but it is my understanding that this codebase prefers the latter,
   a tradition which goes back to 2005 when Linus was still writing
   a lot of code, i.e. the identifier that is the name of the
   function, without & in front.