From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D8A1F66E for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727834AbgHLMzZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:55:25 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60156 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726698AbgHLMzR (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:55:17 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x743.google.com (mail-qk1-x743.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::743]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D5D9C06174A for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x743.google.com with SMTP id n129so1872092qkd.6 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:55:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BmnaG2VayU98wTvwqW9h2+3U0BxM+/A6+jeN6AHB3xI=; b=bv0bpAdWYjwVP93N16IIbMd4D8qRVrbGGmvN7Z5DCeknDLlouofTAbnKWXxITUxaoy CuqFk8qmSskg8q5gRjMhZnBTElU3BsWkxiOFeGYodTCJyQmGpb3Js9iHVNfUumdxAw76 CTdgAG/8vdGl2A9T5k9WQBK5D1Q16YPc3bD5WKnlqBGgcSIUxYinfLnALbEt9SIDEjXt O9yfl50Rli/CLwqmxHEZnOyD7MTG7YeVzYINYDBs/UqqhAkD6WwEeJAU9ijioHwRcOr9 fg9RTE8nZEw9drZXcsmWQV6Apng77QhsH7hyGwlb1AqCCFhnkbKQIOXKPj0CZUf5NZ7h idlw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BmnaG2VayU98wTvwqW9h2+3U0BxM+/A6+jeN6AHB3xI=; b=TTkTLqtgzICEQIprCLRCl9aJX1y/6T0vZZNJ5g/9BZUdaEg7fXf9+mUXh07B44qR7I Gwuk5YWBn0hi8Uaxsxu1zaVUmFeY6eFyFlsd19T67XpT9c4+NZrVrF4F6Ypz1Gvf4QzR CKh5WpYzCZHsGxpXhsrpVzfqbG8x95G6fDTQbq50kx3EvrqlEGioqV2RX2osV5oTnWUc PVQEMHJHIggdNpGfkGSk/cJpqmTqPXmrPOKh/wiE6COGtpUJDYFtmICa9tCtekfAMN6C cszNXkUVAxdZy0JDwXEYUnCeVQmZ21lLtyCBOXG9U9hQZ6sH3E2Pw/bbeMnhgLitmvFU lFcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532dx29Qcs5M7pxjjG7OCdeGyrsp8rt9lZg5lUEl7a3ul1KjnjyI g6YgDZQzhMRgOKN82man67I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdBbxws5l6JRfRKBKSaZUOETqbGN1VI6TSe0mkGR2OFgAUv7R/fgbdQvwBizpB35gbuIYduw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:63d3:: with SMTP id x202mr5604283qkb.1.1597236915322; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:e72:80a0:79ce:9d5a:1dc3:8f14? ([2600:1700:e72:80a0:79ce:9d5a:1dc3:8f14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y3sm2216100qkd.132.2020.08.12.05.55.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] negotiator/null: add null fetch negotiator To: Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org Cc: gitster@pobox.com References: <20200724223844.2723397-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> <35bdd372ae3691f54775dd616576e8ed6d68f1d3.1597184949.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> From: Derrick Stolee Message-ID: <2f6b3e7e-8f83-bfde-ab63-1eed08ff32b5@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:55:14 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:80.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/80.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <35bdd372ae3691f54775dd616576e8ed6d68f1d3.1597184949.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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? Thanks, -Stolee