From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:18:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/15] pkt-line: add packet_write_gently_fmt()
Message-ID: <xmqqpopg5yqf.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160810134346.6nmf2sudwh56nq76@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:04:01PM +0200, larsxschneider@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> +int packet_write_gently_fmt(int fd, const char *fmt, ...)
>> +{
>> +	static struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +	va_list args;
>> +
>> +	strbuf_reset(&buf);
>> +	va_start(args, fmt);
>> +	format_packet(1, &buf, fmt, args);
>> +	va_end(args);
>> +	packet_trace(buf.buf + 4, buf.len - 4, 1);
>> +	return (write_in_full(fd, buf.buf, buf.len) == buf.len ? 0 : -1);
>> +}
>
> Could the end of this function just be:
>
>   return packet_write_gently(fd, buf.buf, buf.len);
>
> ? I guess we'd prefer to avoid that, because it incurs an extra
> memmove() of the data.
>
> Similarly, I'd think this could share code with the non-gentle form
> (which should be able to just call this and die() if returns an error).
> Though sometimes the va_list transformation makes that awkward.

Yes.

Also regarding the naming, please have "_gently" at the end; that is
how all other function families with _gently variant are named, I
think.