From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20321F4F8 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 19:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755067AbcJETfj (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:35:39 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:63015 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755053AbcJETfh (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:35:37 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1BA44F1D; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=UEghV4xBwuP1+P/vPE6Q2ggycmc=; b=TVsbdX mcYmBURFUigD90ZF/ZGwuWzCy0smTyV8FWj2oqKMGTrIm8e/mo5c9OTs10+i/Cq3 1GyQ98yzmvkmEdc7iyYDTlNtxXme9Wsr+PX3OmFQy7lDvSptoJYQLHUL2CuTTaDT f1zDBIwrACZyuIbLfFMHAX+6tn+P1Dlb6f/X8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=kSi4QzuQ/8ppyCjjAIoeUP3DLOuRDsmO +NpXG298tc2cJsT9S8f27cj4HJaxX4s7CIpSI31CnYzfzkYnHeSHLzUcqh+GTmyd 2pnzFjzKxE+jR240wfjR7ju+oiT1rFzrmAlRwI17uQDdfAZX3Yv7zOVHbJKU0Gro Ejulit+VCS0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1884844F1C; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8459544F19; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:35:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jacob Keller Cc: Jeff King , Git mailing list , =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] fill_sha1_file: write "boring" characters References: <20161003203321.rj5jepviwo57uhqw@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20161003203555.6xadycotmmkuf34h@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:35:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Jacob Keller's message of "Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:49:10 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E31A6844-8B32-11E6-923C-F99D12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jacob Keller writes: >> The cost of fill function having to do the same thing repeatedly is >> negligible, so I am OK with the result, but for fairness, this was >> not "make the callers do this extra thing", but was "the caller can >> prepare these unchanging parts just once, and the fill function that >> is repeatedly run does not have to." > > Sure, but it's a pretty minor optimization and I think the result is > easier to understand. Yes; in case it wasn't clear, my comment was merely for fairness to the original code. I do agree that the end result of this series makes a very pleasant read.