On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:16:32PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote: > >The original code is slightly more efficient, as it is able to use a > >single malloc (because it knows the number of entries ahead of time). > >It probably doesn't make a difference, but we could also add a > >sha1_array_grow() for this case. > [...] > We coulddo that, yes. In the case above we have the number already, > in the other cases we'd have to count. > > But I don't think it's worth it here. ALLOC_GROW gives us 24 entries > initially, which should be enough in most cases -- I'm not sure I > want to see combined diff of that many tree. And 24 times 20 bytes > is small enough to not cause any memory allocation issues. You're right. I was blindly looking at the conversion without thinking about the context. Of course if you have just a few items, it's going to be irrelevant (my initial refactoring of sha1_array was to help speed up a hundreds-of-thousands of sha1s case, so I think that put me in the mindset of a large list). Sorry for the noise. -Peff -- 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