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

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