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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D46C9C4332F for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 20:27:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229728AbiLIU1d (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2022 15:27:33 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57972 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229784AbiLIU11 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2022 15:27:27 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9507BA56FB for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 12:27:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8229 invoked by uid 109); 9 Dec 2022 20:27:25 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Dec 2022 20:27:25 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 28517 invoked by uid 111); 9 Dec 2022 20:27:25 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 09 Dec 2022 15:27:25 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 15:27:24 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com, gitster@pobox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] object-file: refactor map_loose_object_1() Message-ID: References: <20221209181704.106534-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221209181704.106534-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 10:17:04AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > If you take my suggestion on patch 3, then the only other caller of > > map_loose_object_1() goes away, and we can fold it all into one > > reasonably-named function: > > Ah, that is true as of this patch, but patch 3 introduces another caller > of this function. I tried to allude to it in the commit message, but if > there is a clearer way to explain that, please let me know. Yes, that's the "other caller" I was referring to. :) Hopefully it is more clear after you read my comments on v3. -Peff