On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:48:19PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > I agree the actual numbers aren't helping anybody. We _could_ leave a > > comment that says "we store a lot of these in memory; be careful of > > where and how you add new fields to avoid increasing the struct size". > > And then people can run "pahole" before and after their changes. > > > > But then that is also true of other structs (like "struct object"), and > > we do not bother there. So it probably is fine not to annotate this > > specifically. > > We have such a comment at the very type of the block comment above > `struct object_entry`'s definition: > > "The size of struct nearly determines pack-object's memory > consumption. This struct is packed tight for that reason. When you > add or reorder something in this struct, think a bit about this". > > thanks to Duy back in 3b13a5f263 (pack-objects: reorder members to > shrink struct object_entry, 2018-04-14). Oh, indeed. Then I withdraw my (non-)complaint. :) -Peff
