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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 E3F5BC433E0 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4EE207DA for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Mf+A/PHb" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726632AbgHLQoL (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:44:11 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:58508 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726518AbgHLQoK (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:44:10 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70587D4ED5; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:44:07 -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=eQ9vKx/GfYR3xmnE6lPJ1KuApTs=; b=Mf+A/P HbCLpqR3WWm4Af2pJAJLDJQf7l28SGljAdoc5IAN+kDAIAcP7WVbriiZNR25t/Oz eM7JkNnB5wm92hrmzoUSpeCQ2el2NuecRXhtNiTtwzGb3gsrqYRkj1rMaYeRR7nK eVBcvZXDNVUIJT7QgkxEOSQBed0Sr3IEuVTAo= 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=J3rA6Dp+wOEVszkXrVRrnDIipUOeqhuS VDbKfMnAVvywBcCDLr8Ab4kH5r4I9wYWS6/dwoeEi0Q5fj2vnIwE180aDedym0rF 4kJPpI4/L3YsTJuN4HXPuLrHa+cADZSYYY/nbxab0IXDZESKEAqmfwZmpYB7i53m XWqla+ea5m0= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692CED4ED4; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:44:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (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 B2B9FD4ED1; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:44:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] negotiator/null: add null fetch negotiator References: <20200724223844.2723397-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> <35bdd372ae3691f54775dd616576e8ed6d68f1d3.1597184949.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> <2f6b3e7e-8f83-bfde-ab63-1eed08ff32b5@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:44:02 -0700 In-Reply-To: <2f6b3e7e-8f83-bfde-ab63-1eed08ff32b5@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:55:14 -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: 087AD3AC-DCBB-11EA-BEC9-F0EA2EB3C613-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: > On 8/11/2020 6:52 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: >> Add a null fetch negotiator. > > I understand the value of this negotiator. I'm concerned about using > "null" as the name, since it has a clear relationship to zero-valued > pointers and that's not what is happening. (My gut feeling starting the > patch was that some function pointers would be NULL or something.) > > Instead, might I recommend "noop" or "no_op" in place of "null" here? Personally I am OK with null [*], but noop is also fine. Side note. I actually would find it good to establish the pattern that something that does not use NULL pointer as its implementation detail can be called null if "null-ness" of its behaviour is its defining characteristics. Thanks.