From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] refs.c: replace write_str_in_full by write_in_full Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:38:43 -0500 Message-ID: <20150121233843.GB11115@peff.net> References: <1421882625-916-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> <1421882625-916-4-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, mhagger@alum.mit.edu, loic@dachary.org To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 22 00:38:49 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YE4rI-00025k-Vl for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:38:49 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752166AbbAUXip (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:38:45 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:37094 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751924AbbAUXio (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:38:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 2346 invoked by uid 102); 21 Jan 2015 23:38:44 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:38:44 -0600 Received: (qmail 1899 invoked by uid 107); 21 Jan 2015 23:39:09 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:39:09 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:38:43 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1421882625-916-4-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:23:42PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote: > There is another occurrence where we could have used write_str_in_full > (line 3107: write_in_full(lock->lk->fd, &term, 1)), so the current state > is inconsistent. This replaces the only occurrence of write_str_in_full > by write_in_full, so we only need to wrap write_in_full in the next patch. I had to read the first sentence a few times to figure out what you meant. But I am not sure it is even relevant. We do not care about the inconsistency. It is just "we are about to change how callers of write_in_full in this file behave, the wrapper gets in the way, and it does not add enough value by itself to merit making our future changes in two places". -Peff