> On 10 Aug 2016, at 19:18, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:04:01PM +0200, larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> +int packet_write_gently_fmt(int fd, const char *fmt, ...)
>>> +{
>>> + static struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>>> + va_list args;
>>> +
>>> + strbuf_reset(&buf);
>>> + va_start(args, fmt);
>>> + format_packet(1, &buf, fmt, args);
>>> + va_end(args);
>>> + packet_trace(buf.buf + 4, buf.len - 4, 1);
>>> + return (write_in_full(fd, buf.buf, buf.len) == buf.len ? 0 : -1);
>>> +}
>>
>> Could the end of this function just be:
>>
>> return packet_write_gently(fd, buf.buf, buf.len);
>>
>> ? I guess we'd prefer to avoid that, because it incurs an extra
>> memmove() of the data.
>>
>> Similarly, I'd think this could share code with the non-gentle form
>> (which should be able to just call this and die() if returns an error).
>> Though sometimes the va_list transformation makes that awkward.
>
> Yes.
Peff just posted that he tried the shared code idea but the result
ended up ugly.
> Also regarding the naming, please have "_gently" at the end; that is
> how all other function families with _gently variant are named, I
> think.
OK, I will rename them.
Thanks,
Lars
--
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