From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: kernel.org and GIT tree rebuilding Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20050624.212009.92584730.davem@davemloft.net> <42BCE026.8050405@pobox.com> <42BCF02B.5090706@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 29 07:45:51 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DnVNt-0007v4-DE for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:45:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262435AbVF2Fw2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:52:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262436AbVF2Fw1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:52:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:51881 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262435AbVF2FwY (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:52:24 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j5T5qLjA023727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:52:21 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j5T5qKYG022490; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:52:20 -0700 To: Nicolas Pitre In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.40__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.111 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > Of course by the time I sent the above you already rewrote the ting to > > be streamable. > > And by the time you sent me a new version, I'd already taken part of your > old one by hand ;) Btw, I have the size/type bits reversed from your setup, but please don't change that, since that would be yet another incompatible pack format change, and I'd like to calm things down. Also, I notice that you decode the sizes really strangely: you have a "while() { }" loop and two separate loads. It's much nicer to do it with a "do { } while()" loop and a single load, since not only is it less code, a do-while loop compiles to better code than a while() loop (unless the compiler is crazy, which it sometimes is). Linus