From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (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 A7687168C7 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:25:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722007552; cv=none; b=GOOx1QMU8+Z5tXAkxPbOTxBUupDHesXdRjEkXuO1REcp6yvyU1xWqgCZjaMwIx/CUbLBXkqxtHuYpPptlrP8e/s8wkZnehkd5/Xd4M3QCQ6ej63JOpzTQlSnucZVU+DlvgtZPRlvGoE3BpjWeN60eSIddObfr0DI/KfPJ2jQB8o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722007552; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CNLUx9LEQYr5efQh+GhMi/zbcrr/X8zWb7Z+cV+DoLc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=sW65wqdzJ2IWnMfRxrUiSD478fD1kFYIVJ7j5mj6UgAbuMOoBNxZqxx8z9p8YA4WuYE4QzQ/rMZRpBefwidl8gnBST9IKwnDTNfU0dpL7EGnlcNmgBjLh23hd3zkEyao5T8tHXaMBrfYAtYG6/im6leosg+hz/Xjy40pusAz1eI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=s2Jf+UkL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="s2Jf+UkL" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFD1345C8; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:25:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=CNLUx9LEQYr5efQh+GhMi/zbcrr/X8zWb7Z+cV +DoLc=; b=s2Jf+UkLZLfvX4ca8MMITRf3NXbUpEjtLRUqPuP9BJMyEqML8pWkyc l76vi0b+jHVcbOYxGFPpe8mtOtBRsfHoi5/8W2ZwvaPcCvfv9A9Qrn1eEk738RAW Y+lWcYRqYcd6UheV4luaYczd8xfoCaSeU+uheNEnFZvjgsVGupD8I= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930CF345C7; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:25:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24F16345C6; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:25:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Karthik Nayak Cc: Toon Claes , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] transport: introduce transport_has_remote_bundle_uri() In-Reply-To: (Karthik Nayak's message of "Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:58:21 -0700") References: <20240722080705.2614195-1-toon@iotcl.com> <20240724144957.3033840-1-toon@iotcl.com> <20240724144957.3033840-3-toon@iotcl.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:25:40 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5204C5D0-4B63-11EF-A5B2-9625FCCAB05B-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Karthik Nayak writes: >> diff --git a/transport.c b/transport.c >> index 12cc5b4d96..1a7d86fa40 100644 >> --- a/transport.c >> +++ b/transport.c >> @@ -1536,7 +1536,7 @@ int transport_fetch_refs(struct transport *transport, struct ref *refs) >> return rc; >> } >> >> -int transport_get_remote_bundle_uri(struct transport *transport) >> +static int transport_get_remote_bundle_uri(struct transport *transport) >> > > Why make it static? The reason is rather well described in the proposed log message, I think. >> + * bundle URI(s) are received from the server. >> + * Populates "struct transport"'s "bundles" and "got_remote_bundle_uri". >> */ >> -int transport_get_remote_bundle_uri(struct transport *transport); >> +int transport_has_remote_bundle_uri(struct transport *transport); >> > > Shouldn't this now be renamed to `transport_has_bundle_uri`? Earlier, we > were 'getting' bundle URIs from the remote. Now, we are abstracting that > away and simply asking, 'do we have bundle URIs'. A good question.