# [PATCH] send-pack.c: mark a file-local function static 3 messages from 2013-12-12 to 2013-12-13. Participants: Ramsay Jones, Duy Nguyen. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/35525 ## Ramsay Jones, 2013-12-12 23:15 Subject: [PATCH] send-pack.c: mark a file-local function static Message-ID: <52AA43AA.9030703@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/52AA43AA.9030703%40ramsay1.demon.co.uk ``` Commit f2c681cf ("send-pack: support pushing from a shallow clone via http", 05-12-2013) adds the 'advertise_shallow_grafts_buf' function as an external symbol. This symbol does not require more than file visibility. Noticed by sparse. ("'advertise_shallow_grafts_buf' was not declared. Should it be static?") Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones --- Hi Duy, If you need to re-roll the patches in your 'nd/shallow-clone' branch, could you please squash this into your patch. Thanks! BTW, I have not been following these patches, but I noticed that the 'remove_nonexistent_ours_in_pack()' function has no callers. (There are two commented out callers - but they seem to have *always* been commented out ;-) ). So, step 5 is no longer required? :-D ATB, Ramsay Jones send-pack.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/send-pack.c b/send-pack.c index 2a199cc..6129b0f 100644 --- a/send-pack.c +++ b/send-pack.c @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ static int advertise_shallow_grafts_cb(const struct commit_graft *graft, void *c return 0; } -void advertise_shallow_grafts_buf(struct strbuf *sb) +static void advertise_shallow_grafts_buf(struct strbuf *sb) { if (!is_repository_shallow()) return; -- 1.8.5 ``` ## Duy Nguyen, 2013-12-13 00:58 Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-pack.c: mark a file-local function static Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CACsJy8DnVUc2xQGD4hr2tuFhaGj4kuc%3D63xxmmUwq1bkFtztOw%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <52AA43AA.9030703@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> ``` On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Ramsay Jones wrote: > BTW, I have not been following these patches, but I noticed that the > 'remove_nonexistent_ours_in_pack()' function has no callers. (There are > two commented out callers - but they seem to have *always* been commented > out ;-) ). So, step 5 is no longer required? :-D It's more of an optimization than a requirement, to avoid expensive calculation later. Uncommenting is possible but I need to pass the pack file name around a bit. -- Duy ``` ## Ramsay Jones, 2013-12-13 22:50 Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-pack.c: mark a file-local function static Message-ID: <52AB8F31.40107@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/52AB8F31.40107%40ramsay1.demon.co.uk In-Reply-To: ``` On 13/12/13 00:58, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Ramsay Jones > wrote: >> BTW, I have not been following these patches, but I noticed that the >> 'remove_nonexistent_ours_in_pack()' function has no callers. (There are >> two commented out callers - but they seem to have *always* been commented >> out ;-) ). So, step 5 is no longer required? :-D > > It's more of an optimization than a requirement, to avoid expensive > calculation later. Uncommenting is possible but I need to pass the > pack file name around a bit. > Ah, OK. (I should probably refrain from commenting on code I haven't read ... :-P ) ATB, Ramsay Jones ```