> On 10 Aug 2016, at 15:43, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
I don't think the memmove would be that expensive. However, format_packet()
already creates the packet_header and packet_write_gently would do the same
again, no?
> 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.
Yeah, the code duplication annoyed me, too. va_list was the reason I did it
that way. Do you think that is something that needs to be addressed in the
series?
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
