From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-186.mta1.migadu.com (out-186.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEC6FB661 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2025 15:09:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.186 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762268954; cv=none; b=JISvrDu4x/QRgKGvRW6AsfutPB5JkKE2051XNpl69FTGlkJ366PkNbpsukzBiHKQtV3VRNxhmmtJHAA6mkcgowQ+TfJYOijUl2WzgQ/H07vACk/hPTvVOkOe3oGRmngUpC6QGiEOjjbBsHCfX9ve6eeBXtDr7nYNGpzINY6kPGs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762268954; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OPC8bx5ZUBSc6FvUwq3HXfzMDQackq9+JIuBFsfImAg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Yi8VSUc7H8gEyAeCIGCq2YjNktd4PvnfIiPCKiVFRL7o7yQPkmdpPJGXtVIxw6zAz2UGZ/NQr48HI7WO/GzwBfWE43Qn14wUskY1xJxjeQN/+DPvcb8DB/mF31C9VLWuKk25NgsuFjjw2MwUb08LLR3Q0v2kRIR3swvSQkMKuRQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=iotcl.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=iotcl.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iotcl.com header.i=@iotcl.com header.b=HaW9CTFn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.186 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=iotcl.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=iotcl.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iotcl.com header.i=@iotcl.com header.b="HaW9CTFn" X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iotcl.com; s=key1; t=1762268946; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xTsYioEkkmBDY/5RYU1vC4SIBbRalYRecdVNm7Bchks=; b=HaW9CTFnt3vxJrGNlbOWoCfiXyf8hJ7PiVuuDTSQI4l2INQqmFzM5dSjDLVu45muSyzerA 3HoyE61/owqkozrafqHkHaZ6TCM3rlw5F6+uF2Y/2/95Z2TmQNBneQBujIe+qPDJZORBvr ZwMfDaVjuu5uaY19ix8ZDEuHAryCZG0= From: Toon Claes To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Karthik Nayak , Justin Tobler , Taylor Blau , "D. Ben Knoble" , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] last-modified: implement faster algorithm In-Reply-To: References: <20251023-b4-toon-last-modified-faster-v3-1-40a4ddbbadec@iotcl.com> <20251103154726.26592-1-toon@iotcl.com> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 16:08:43 +0100 Message-ID: <87ms51esxw.fsf@iotcl.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Junio C Hamano writes: > Toon Claes writes: > >> Changes in v4: >> - Use CALLOC_ARRAY() instead of xcalloc() as identified by Junio using >> 'make coccicheck'. >> - Small formatting changes. >> - Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251023-b4-toon-last-modified-faster-v3-1-40a4ddbbadec@iotcl.com > > Sorry, but this came way after I started today's integration cycle, No worries. > which included merging the fixed-up version to 'next'. Well, thank you. > I saw some > "let's drop {} around the body of if/for with a single statement" > changes but each of these single statements was not a simple > statement but an if-statement, and personally I feel that it is > clearer to enclose them in {} (in other words, once the code is > written in that way, it is not worth the patch noise to go and fix > them). Understood. > The only regrettable thing without v4 is the double space > between ") {" in the second hunk below X-<, but perhaps it is minor > enough to leave it to the next person who touches the vicinity of > this code ;-). If you feel strongly about them, please send in an > incremental updates, but as I said, I do not think it is necessary. It remained undiscovered by various reviewers and myself. I only noticed because I saw CI style-check mention this (also the reason I touched the {} on the for loops). So I don't mind leaving it this way. > Thanks. <3 -- Cheers, Toon