From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFF51F404 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727612AbeH2B3k (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:29:40 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f194.google.com ([209.85.220.194]:41792 "EHLO mail-qk0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727176AbeH2B3k (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:29:40 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f194.google.com with SMTP id h138-v6so2052263qke.8 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:36:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=GUDWwk+3aDtOpfa2ONMQz6BdF53uDAwLTdYH5HLlLxI=; b=NyYzxiBOZkMQTzqm6i6TqI8mXHkwD31q6UIP/Dn4uFNaNTVRDKldxzLNtTProXmosQ 16nxAXFRXlv2wZbOXN5anFOZ5JDc0pDsYikp4F7YtpLVJPZiw2gXw1LfkV/lmbjLQXod Ggv1VjkktKZnMzrN0MLpJgjLdVrQc3IdbVsmHG38KWTcZbsTsbhximwcosW+Dt+xzqmf DVdkCjQDrjKvsOzqrsJvXJPWNLM6OkKbIWZs0SQbEcdQ6QX9ba7BLM1hkjyvfIjG4ar+ OBhpNKp5Rz0xXj05zdSIyDJzU0OvYKfMwIPnjZ2g078qM0uq98NpiSvIPHbGM3mtEZAu bTzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=GUDWwk+3aDtOpfa2ONMQz6BdF53uDAwLTdYH5HLlLxI=; b=P3Sc38nxoF1YOVzJKEmzVDn7/BjG6iwTo8vmPzamUSApGABcJ3JdIWPTFiJYQGQIX9 7m7OJ4r8MPpbAUtyZnasMk+Tcss5AoTgF9AZNthKMyYD+IQPqorK7dowCIThC5BgfjMk ByMSeVKeAcL0V0sarPcLYfOx0PGOsewZ7RAoQZ9EBiE5iJUZ9guHDdOXSbJkvuIDwAoJ SxVeU0l7ywUyWQh2GcnFdp/curjpxJnnA0xx3OBv+NChmcz8bAKadUnwm/qFsH0N6dOW PDFonzt0sp9qyWQMlYjrv2ZzdFqDX/RfeS00DN3qzggp4ppAQaPj56/1FE0xLgJ+LWcq JPmA== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51DCpZc3xXfpdCDQmdLyKF+Vii5qfdfg0tCYoWEkz/roJT5c1MNy 8alMoWCcbaCpUwrYWx+je2w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdbxvbpGa9kE0FQPaBYUZ3n6Iskl3NVOr7zNT+aVkF7L052gwbwqhvc5BSauirQEnEcmnLFLLg== X-Received: by 2002:ae9:eb8d:: with SMTP id b135-v6mr3649372qkg.123.1535492165982; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] ([98.122.163.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b16-v6sm1354158qkj.76.2018.08.28.14.36.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] introducing oideq() To: Jeff King , "brian m. carlson" , git@vger.kernel.org, Jacob Keller References: <20180825080031.GA32139@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180826205620.GC873448@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> <20180828212126.GA7039@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Derrick Stolee Message-ID: <4a35886d-b1f5-6d5a-554e-508d838e542e@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 17:36:03 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180828212126.GA7039@sigill.intra.peff.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 8/28/2018 5:21 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 08:56:21PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > >>> Due to the simplicity of the current code and our inlining, the compiler >>> can usually figure this out for now. So I wouldn't expect this patch to >>> actually improve performance right away. But as that discussion shows, >>> we are likely to take a performance hit as we move to more runtime >>> determination of the_hash_algo parameters. Having these callers use the >>> more strict form will potentially help us recover that. >>> >>> So in that sense we _could_ simply punt on this series until then (and >>> it's certainly post-v2.19 material). But I think it's worth doing now, >>> simply from a readability/annotation standpoint. IMHO the resulting code >>> is more clear (though I've long since taught myself to read !foocmp() as >>> equality). >> I would quite like to see this series picked up for v2.20. If we want >> to minimize performance regressions with the SHA-256 work, I think it's >> important. > Thanks. One of the things I was worried about was causing unnecessary > conflicts with existing topics, including your work. But if everybody is > on board, I'd be happy to see this go in early in the next release cycle > (the longer we wait, the more annoying conflicts Junio has to resolve). I'm happy to take this change whenever. In my opinion, right after v2.19.0 is cut would be a great time to merge it into master. This v2 is good. Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee