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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 B66B8C433F5 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 02:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E62610C9 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 02:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346165AbhIHCnY (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2021 22:43:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40702 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235776AbhIHCnW (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2021 22:43:22 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B480FC061575 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 19:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id u15-20020a05600c19cf00b002f6445b8f55so390797wmq.0 for ; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 19:42:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=cp6P1C3370/qEzONTCo+2tfc2IVRi38B5WDEd8+wAVM=; b=1FbbVmAV6EOiYar/a/h2kG3E447H03AcfArBItnaCdKtZAEXnhhPCnQXgWXuIojdiR iEErVsRPGZCErNAQx7iM8d8zplXwNAdQ1U1mnPUhFEvVeRzo0y7M+WJAQBUF6AOwqnTQ 8/xeQND3rxc0851JA8Lzt618sk1AoMO6OKvgOkZ3ZsoS2xwE6Y2zaKXoMT1jPcEkRXCo j/doqB+uYHte+pzapYfDGdL4jJt7fVhdFGHEt9pb7o9sUz2PvXsYrM6ZsVYSoTGfAGf/ UhcFAfMydOGSG63Co3xrzDMkeWQqppWFRglHTmhRqknlCXUjTyHoUXT8GzcXtqPDJyhc zGCw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=cp6P1C3370/qEzONTCo+2tfc2IVRi38B5WDEd8+wAVM=; b=ic1cABAtioJ3jKKTDBZfjgsPQ/6xGQbg2SIQMKxqYIx5dB3lljOa3g2CpJ4TiS4N5d FFh/gVb7PTa1BuMNwvg9y6F6AuIUpcmynWcZ5qRqNwTq//0o585MtWbC0tnGVF41q7P4 swoT2KrRjCO4AnmiJbh3Pr3WO3tQ8j79TEXX+9KaaZGQ+N25M3EStRinMYdDDgLfD5ow GfYMvIaNZ0MXEKW08cZgwwJ6NySrGhzQI7re7Muj5dbvTPQ1j+AzAMjvJCn+9GJmBRDd 5sKosDii2rov2LSr4StpNZ4oIZU+bg3o4DHVpot4feVaojhWzj2N5OKOnqUuYniHF44I vlCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533WhI/m85ivnr/MpHKN4yiHYB05GkjmDvFKX7Z/Qm7dtQSN/I2x 6oxXUxfPwkOJwu03vHqrhg0QZQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyjObZrmgpltrgq66jUfLtBLJ8hNuvoH7qJX+sFzHdz145zm/KF1/BS81tEivpkQTQeQyeErw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:259:: with SMTP id 25mr1102005wmj.82.1631068934323; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 19:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j18sm665401wrd.56.2021.09.07.19.42.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Sep 2021 19:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 22:42:11 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Carlo Arenas Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , Taylor Blau , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH] pack-write: skip *.rev work when not writing *.rev Message-ID: References: <9f40019eb3d3315cb03440e6237bced4feb6cf67.1617116623.git.me@ttaylorr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 06:35:10PM -0700, Carlo Arenas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 6:10 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > + if (!(flags & WRITE_REV) && !(flags & WRITE_REV_VERIFY)) > > + return NULL; > > I see this expression matches exactly the logic from 8ef50d9958 which > is why I presume > you used it, but the simpler (and logically equivalent[1]) : > > if !((flags & WRITE_REV) || (flags & WRITE_REV_VERIFY)) Even simpler would be: if (!(flags & (WRITE_REV | WRITE_REV_VERIFY))) although with optimization flags other than -O0, it seems that each of these three produce the same result [1], so I don't think that it matters much either way ;-). Thanks, Taylor [1]: https://godbolt.org/z/fxxhzEz79