From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] Add valgrind support in test scripts Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:42:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20090125234204.GA19202@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090121001219.GA18169@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090121190201.GA21686@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090121215318.GA9107@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20090125232954.GC19099@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 26 00:44:28 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LREeI-0004BZ-0L for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:44:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750860AbZAYXmJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:42:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750789AbZAYXmH (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:42:07 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:54357 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750775AbZAYXmG (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:42:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 29330 invoked by uid 107); 25 Jan 2009 23:42:14 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:42:14 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:42:04 -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 Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:35:31AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > I actually kind of liked the original atomic version over the one with > > locking. But I find this one acceptable. > > The locking is only in there because of you... I know it came out of our discussion, but I thought it was going a bit far. That is, what should ideally be a little chunk of code to make some links keeps getting more and more complex. And as your locking patch came after my "OK, I guess this is fine" comments, I thought you realized I was accepting it as-is. So sorry to make you to go to extra work (and please don't go to extra work ripping it out on my account -- I just wanted to make clear that I decided your analysis was sane, and that I am OK with any of the iterations you posted). -Peff