From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 05:03:20 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] ref-filter: add objectsize:disk option Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <01020166f76d845f-1a02a31e-5094-4b27-974d-a23811066c58-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> Olga Telezhnaya writes: > @@ -876,11 +882,13 @@ static void grab_common_values(struct atom_value *val, int deref, struct expand_ > name++; > if (!strcmp(name, "objecttype")) > v->s = xstrdup(type_name(oi->type)); > - else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize")) { > + else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize:disk")) { > + v->value = oi->disk_size; > + v->s = xstrfmt("%lld", (long long)oi->disk_size); oi.disk_size is off_t; do we know "long long" (1) is available widely enough (I think it is from c99)? (2) is sufficiently wide so that we can safely cast off_t to? (3) will stay to be sufficiently wide as machines get larger together with standard types like off_t in the future? I'd rather use intmax_t (as off_t is a signed integral type) so that we do not have to worry about these questions in the first place. > + } else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize")) { > v->value = oi->size; > v->s = xstrfmt("%lu", oi->size); This is not a suggestion but is a genuine question, but I wonder if two years down the road somebody who meets this API for the first time find the asymmetry between "objectsize" and "objectsize:disk" a tad strange and suggest the former to have "objectsize:real" or some synonym. Or we can consider "objectsize" the primary thing (hence needing no colon-plus-modifier to clarify what kind of size we are asking) and leave these two deliberatly asymmetric. I am leaning towards the latter myself. > - } > - else if (deref) > + } else if (deref) > grab_objectname(name, &oi->oid, v, &used_atom[i]); > } > } > > -- > https://github.com/git/git/pull/552