Re: [PATCHv2] attr: convert to new threadsafe API

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2016, 21:44 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4m4h2qef.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kaQGs_3dhd-yEzaq=CRXGQhbMuN_7FdFY=FeKZ4scmMeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>>
>>> This version adds the actual thread safety,
>>> that is promised in the documentation, however it doesn't add any optimization,
>>> i.e. it's a single global lock. But as we do not expect contention, that is fine.
>>
>> Because we have to start _somewhere_, I agree it is a good approach
>> to first try the simplest implementation and then optimize later,
>> but is it an agreed consensus that we do not expect contention?
>
> I agree on that. Did you mean this is obvious to the reader?

I meant to say that "But as we do not expect" sounded like a justification for the approach based on an unwarranted assumption that is not even the list concensus. I do not think it is obvious to the reader that there is no need to worry about contention.

It all is outside the log message, so as long as readers understand what we meant from this discussion, that is OK.