Brandon Casey <drafnel@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > ... Again, I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm not > sure this change actually improves the code. Yeah, in the context of the current caller, this is a safe change that does not break anybody and reduces the number of instructions executed in this codepath. A mistaken caller may be added in the future that fails to check auto-threashold beforehand, but that won't lead to anything bad like looping for a large number of times, so as long as the API contract into this helper function is clear that callers are responsible to check beforehand, it is still not too bad. So, I'd throw this into "Meh - I won't regret applying it, but it is not the end of the world if I forget to apply it, either" pile. I _think_ a change that actually improves the code would be to restructure so that there is a helper that is responsible for guestimating the number of loose objects, and another that uses the helper to see if there are too many loose objects. The latter is the only one tha needs to know about auto-threashold. But we are not in immdiate need for such a clean-up, I guess, unless somebody is actively looking into revamping how auto-gc works and doing a preparatory clean-up.
