Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > It would be easy to implement sha1_entry_pos in terms of sha1_pos by > writing an access function. But it seems unnecessarily slow to add > function call overhead in what should be a fairly tight loop. Yeah, that could also be a double-regression as sha1_pos() implementation is sloppier and does not protect itself from its guess overshooting the target like sha1_entry_pos() does. The first step definitely is to remove the duplicated comment, and the second step would probably be to unify the "mi" selection logic in sha1_pos() and sha1_entry_pos(). Either the simplicity of the former is sufficient for the users of the latter, or the users of the former would also benefit from the less agressive selection of the latter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html