On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> writes: > >> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:51 AM, He Sun <sunheeh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2014-03-01 19:21 GMT+08:00 Faiz Kothari <faiz.of...@gmail.com>: >>>> diff --git a/remote-curl.c b/remote-curl.c >>>> index 10cb011..dee8716 100644 >>>> --- a/remote-curl.c >>>> +++ b/remote-curl.c >>>> @@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static int rpc_service(struct rpc_state *rpc, struct >>>> discovery *heads) >>>> if (start_command(&client)) >>>> exit(1); >>>> if (preamble) >>>> - write_or_die(client.in, preamble->buf, preamble->len); >>>> + strbuf_write_or_die(client.in, preamble); >>>> if (heads) >>>> write_or_die(client.in, heads->buf, heads->len); >>> >>> This should be changed. May be you can use Ctrl-F to search write_or_die(). >>> Or if you are using vim, use "/ and n" to find all. >> >> It's not obvious from the patch fragment, but 'heads' is not a strbuf, >> so Faiz correctly left this invocation alone. > > That is a very good sign why this change is merely a code-churn and > not an improvement, isn't it? We know (and any strbuf user should > know) that ->buf and ->len are the ways to learn the pointer and the > length the strbuf holds. Why anybody thinks it is benefitial to > introduce another function that is _only_ for writing out strbuf and > cannot be used to write out a plain buffer is simply beyond me. > Hi, Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I do realize, its kind of a code churn. I didn't realize it until I looked at the sign you pointed out. But it was a good exercise to go through the code as this is one of the GSoC microprojects. Sorry, it didn't turn out to be a beneficial one. My bad.
Thanks a lot again for the suggestions and feedback. -Faiz -- 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
