On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 14:46 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > David Turner <dturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 10:04 +0200, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > > [snip discussion of compiler flags; I'll look into a cpuid approach] > > Hmmmm, I am not sure if the complexity is really worth it. > > In any case, [PATCH 1/2] is fairly uncontroversial, so I am inclined > to queue it by itself early without waiting for the discussion on > 2/2 to settle. > > >> The name check_refname_component_1() doesn't tell too much, > >> (check_refname_component_sse42() or check_refname_component_nonsse42() say more) > > > > I'll go with "_bytewise", since that's how it works. > > That naming assumes that there will never be any alternative > implementation of the bytewise checker other than the one that uses > sse42, no? check_refname_component_1 is the non-sse (LUT) one; I assume that there will only be one implementation of that (and if there's later another one we can rename it). I guess this is strong evidence for _1 being a bad name. -- 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