Re: [PATCH v5 02/15] pkt-line: call packet_trace() only if a packet is actually send

2016-08-10 Thread Lars Schneider
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 15:13, Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Lars Schneider >> >> The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print >> a trace when a

[PATCH v5 02/15] pkt-line: call packet_trace() only if a packet is actually send

2016-08-10 Thread larsxschneider
From: Lars Schneider The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print a trace when a packet is formatted and (potentially) when the packet is actually send. This was no problem up until now because format_packet() was only used by one function.

Re: [PATCH v5 02/15] pkt-line: call packet_trace() only if a packet is actually send

2016-08-10 Thread Lars Schneider
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 15:30, Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:24:38PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: >>> From: Lars Schneider The

Re: [PATCH v5 02/15] pkt-line: call packet_trace() only if a packet is actually send

2016-08-10 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:24:38PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> From: Lars Schneider > >> > >> The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print > >> a trace

Re: [PATCH v5 02/15] pkt-line: call packet_trace() only if a packet is actually send

2016-08-10 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Lars Schneider > > The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print > a trace when a packet is formatted and (potentially) when the packet is > actually send.

Re: [PATCH v5 02/15] pkt-line: call packet_trace() only if a packet is actually send

2016-08-10 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:51:35PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > I guess my point is that I stumbled over the un-intutiive format_packet() > behavior > and I wanted to improve the situation in a way that others don't run into this > trap. If you think that is no issue then it would be OK for me