Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> So, I'm of two minds here: >> >> 1. This is embarassing. I wasted everyone's time for nothing. I can retract >> this patch. >> >> 2. This is embarassing. I overstated the problem here. But we might be able >> to eke out a tiny performance boost here. >> >> I'm open to either. I think we should default to dropping this patch unless >> someone thinks the rewrite above is a better organization of the logic. (I >> can then send a v2 including that version and an updated commit message.) > > 3. The current code around "if (nr == sizeof(f->buffer))" might be a > bit too clever for readers who try to understand what is going > on, and the whole "while" loop may deserve a comment based on > what you wrote before your replacement implementation. Having said all that, comparing the original and the version updated with your "flush less often" patch, I find the latter quite easier to read, so as long as the update does not give us 1% slowdown, it may be worth adopting for the readability improvement alone. Of course, if we were to go that route, the sales pitch in the log message needs to be updated. Thanks.
