Am 31.03.22 um 14:42 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: > > On Wed, Mar 30 2022, René Scharfe wrote: > >> Am 29.03.22 um 15:56 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: >>> The unpack_one() function will call either a non-trivial >>> unpack_delta_entry() or a trivial unpack_non_delta_entry(). Let's >>> inline the latter in the only caller. >>> >>> Since 21666f1aae4 (convert object type handling from a string to a >>> number, 2007-02-26) the unpack_non_delta_entry() function has been >>> rather trivial, and in a preceding commit the "dry_run" condition it >>> was handling went away. >>> >>> This is not done as an optimization, as the compiler will easily >>> discover that it can do the same, rather this makes a subsequent >>> commit easier to reason about. >> >> How exactly does inlining the function make the next patch easier to >> understand or discuss? Plugging in the stream_blob() call to handle the >> big blobs looks the same with or without the unpack_non_delta_entry() >> call to me. > > The earlier version of it without this prep cleanup can be seen at > https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-v10-6.6-6a70e49a346-20220204T135538Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ This plugged the special case into unpack_non_delta_entry(). The alternative I had in mind was to plug it into the switch statement as the current patch does, just without inlining unpack_non_delta_entry(). > So yes, this could be skipped, but I tought with this step it was easier > to understand. > > We previously had to change "void *buf = get_data(size);" in the > function to just "void *buf", and do the assignment after the condition > that's being checked here. > > I think it's also more obvious in terms of control flow if we're > checking OBJ_BLOB here to not call a function which has a special-case > just for OBJ_BLOB, we can just do that here instead. > >>> As it'll be handling "OBJ_BLOB" in a >>> special manner let's re-arrange that "case" in preparation for that >>> change. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> builtin/unpack-objects.c | 18 +++++++----------- >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> Reducing the number of lines can be an advantage. *shrug* > > There was also the (admittedly rather small) knock-on-effect on > 8/8. Before this it was 8 lines added / 1 removed when it came to the > code impacted by this change, now it's a 5 added/0 removed in the below > "switch". > > So I think it's worth keeping.
