On 02/21/2014 07:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu>
>> ---
>> cache.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
>> index dc040fb..0ecd1c8 100644
>> --- a/cache.h
>> +++ b/cache.h
>> @@ -788,13 +788,29 @@ static inline void *read_sha1_file(const unsigned char
>> *sha1, enum object_type *
>> {
>> return read_sha1_file_extended(sha1, type, size, LOOKUP_REPLACE_OBJECT);
>> }
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * If a replacement for object sha1 has been set up, return the
>> + * replacement object's name (replaced recursively, if necessary).
>> + * The return value is either sha1 or a pointer to a
>> + * permanently-allocated value. This function always respects replace
>> + * references, regardless of the value of check_replace_refs.
>> + */
>> extern const unsigned char *do_lookup_replace_object(const unsigned char
>> *sha1);
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * If object sha1 should be replaced, return the replacement object's
>> + * name. This function is similar to do_lookup_replace_object(),
>> + * except that it when object replacement is suppressed, it always
>> + * returns its argument unchanged.
>> + */
>> static inline const unsigned char *lookup_replace_object(const unsigned
>> char *sha1)
>> {
>> if (!read_replace_refs)
>> return sha1;
>> return do_lookup_replace_object(sha1);
>> }
>> +
>> static inline const unsigned char *lookup_replace_object_extended(const
>> unsigned char *sha1, unsigned flag)
>> {
>> if (!(flag & LOOKUP_REPLACE_OBJECT))
>
> The above description is good, but after reading e1111cef (inline
> lookup_replace_object() calls, 2011-05-15) that introduced this
> ugliness, I have to wonder if do_lookup_replace(), which nobody
> except lookup_replace_object() ever calls, is better removed from
> the public API, making lookup_replace_object() an extern definition.
>
> We do name functions that are purely helpers that are internal
> implementation detals of the API as "do_blah", but exporting that
> kind of name as if that is part of the API people are expected to
> call feels very wrong.
I assume that the current design was to avoid the overhead of a function
call in the case that no replace references exist. If we're willing to
eat that cost, then sure, we should bury do_lookup_replace_object() in
the implementation file.
Unless you say otherwise, I will work that change into my patch series.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhag...@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
