From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE96CC2D0EC for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 21:46:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (unknown [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA40C206E5 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 21:46:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Cr3+g006" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BA40C206E5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=git-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728372AbgDLVq1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Apr 2020 17:46:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.18]:51040 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727388AbgDLVq0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Apr 2020 17:46:26 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60AA5C0A88B7 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C66D4090; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 17:46:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=pY5fGMUNuYgEvmtoCnXuK+iAtUA=; b=Cr3+g0 06Q2gGlMilsIOOJI76ZagG/KhW4XAiQHmpaBLtMbsyMiHISSBWedBCF/DaS1vNf5 p5Na6RRlU8CRWsPOvIu5ukRomY5OM+a5/6egdub16lR0PMhrlFqRd7y51HjUsGAx VOtzp1KBmZEUD+J93e3iS0PbivONGtvkVInFY= 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=AEkILtsUCQNiT3/37BCB3LCSWQZvmli/ C2vzxYnZKrRNUezkaKWaQ5l3DDINFFxf+1pEaBguGVVoYWk1uAJ65lhubVDi7rPG lRQhQB4JwRyyKuiImEUe6fkdeNnnBafGxY4nG9vA56UUpnnC0nlwbiutxXsWqpzY 9dlvFRit0UE= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E14FD408F; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 17:46:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68345D408B; Sun, 12 Apr 2020 17:46:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jiang Xin Cc: Git List , Jiang Xin Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/8] receive-pack: new config receive.procReceiveRefs References: <20200407120813.25025-1-worldhello.net@gmail.com> <20200412133022.17590-5-worldhello.net@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:46:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200412133022.17590-5-worldhello.net@gmail.com> (Jiang Xin's message of "Sun, 12 Apr 2020 09:30:18 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0CFDBF98-7D07-11EA-8714-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jiang Xin writes: > + if (strcmp(var, "receive.procreceiverefs") == 0) { > + char *prefix; > + int len; > + > + if (!value) > + return config_error_nonbool(var); > + prefix = xstrdup(value); > + len = strlen(prefix); > + while (len && prefix[len - 1] == '/') > + prefix[--len] = '\0'; > + string_list_insert(&proc_receive_refs, prefix); This smells like a copy of the hidden-refs configuration parsing, which uses string_list_append(), and its result is used for look-up routine you split out in [3/8], so we know it is safe to leave the string_list that holds the prefix unsorted. Is there a reason why we want to use _insert(), which spends extra cycles to make sure that the string list is sorted, instead (e.g. if we were updating the look-up routine to take advantage of the ordering of the string-list, perhaps)? If so, would it make sense to update the original to match? If not, copy more faithfully to the original and use _append() here, too? Thanks.