Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> @@ -1254,9 +1273,26 @@ static void emit(const char *cp, const char *ep)
>> +static void reset_formatting_state(struct ref_formatting_state *state)
>> +{
>> + int quote_style = state->quote_style;
>> + memset(state, 0, sizeof(*state));
>> + state->quote_style = quote_style;
>
> I wonder if this sledge-hammer approach of saving one or two values
> before clearing the entire 'ref_formatting_state' and then restoring
> the saved values will scale well. Would it be better for this to just
> individually reset the fields which need resetting and not touch those
> that don't?
I'm the one who suggested these 3 lines. I wrote them this way with the
assumption that there would only be 1 field to keep, and thet the rest
of the series was going to add more fields to reset (currently true I
think), to avoid the risk of forgetting one value to reset.
I'm fine with the other way around too.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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