From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] write_ref_sha1(): remove check for lock == NULL Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:06:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20150211000600.GB30561@peff.net> References: <1423473164-6011-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <1423473164-6011-2-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael Haggerty , Junio C Hamano , Ronnie Sahlberg , Jonathan Nieder , =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 11 01:06:10 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 1YLKoj-0001yT-6s for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:06:09 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751385AbbBKAGE (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:06:04 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:47518 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750905AbbBKAGD (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:06:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 13941 invoked by uid 102); 11 Feb 2015 00:06:02 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:06:02 -0600 Received: (qmail 11350 invoked by uid 107); 11 Feb 2015 00:06:05 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:06:05 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:06:00 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:52:23PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > None of the callers pass NULL to this function, and there doesn't seem > > to be any usefulness to allowing them to do so. > > Usually I'd oppose this change, as it seems to be a good defensive > measure. (I cannot assume future me or anybody knows what they're > doing), but as this function (write_ref_sha1) is not widely exposed > any more since aae383db8 (Apr 28, refs.c: make write_ref_sha1 static), > I think it's safe to assume changes affecting this call are well > understood in the future. Thanks, I was iffy on this change for the same reason, but after your explanation, I too think it is reasonable. -Peff