From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C045E1F6AC for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:12:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754522AbeGINMG (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:12:06 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f195.google.com ([209.85.216.195]:36625 "EHLO mail-qt0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754519AbeGINMF (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:12:05 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-f195.google.com with SMTP id f1-v6so15289261qti.3 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 06:12:05 -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-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=evYHtsNn9mJq1dgLVZrgqR4Vo2W7xhtRzw2JB44RphM=; b=OLTJKRQhtEOzDTDKNHDsYueD2Li6k/DqGqe/mV54xbqQDg1VIiexgAFkfqB7A7ZN+/ lkPoACSZaECK2fZb2VYLAjgE2N7tFbLcqSrZcfPGUtzYdSjBfvvoAssQggo1hvuaQHv2 sT9htqOYJ/+zCWErc1P0n5DMgRW65juaN1yGIAFQo5JizYZThPor3GPtZPbqiP/Kt7Qg 2BDXrcUHEVSFhKjtoCRMViegbeOaTbVgTtI0fiZ3dcz6wZU6mszOiPqcBvB8vyYizYKu e5uyNPWyQp3C7PZ8isFcNfm+wDLDqHPNuUv+WDEYgZo8op29VWrW8JCcF7G3U2xopQGl HRGQ== 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-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=evYHtsNn9mJq1dgLVZrgqR4Vo2W7xhtRzw2JB44RphM=; b=G/60PmJOFz/DBNhd+XF/s0cHnOxKLnQVNOoHaZ8KEoqePJ0wA9EJKM6cbKOOuwLM5o 38/L9taymhWr8Buh1va4mwcRp+yzmfcQFW9CIsuncI3HJgP2fzAaj0UYVWmlUb4qs9U/ vlQT+1xtlgXdMC6Q8BB2vFycI0l9xT2xhAR2DP+8HqY6MjScIYbQ6mt7SmVE96p1tkdh X6Xblw1JRngUB1UL1uYwiKnC4SLHFIUVHfbvx0bIctRopMoX0pTJ5o/8cx8otDvkauCY GdN2R01UMSAAEbVwnuLRrRTss422ak3qPnWglrMo0NolL+zSTuOtmfuGUiVOIz92mfqO fcnA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1BTdviFWMFlS/KOedH7IcIGGGJjMhEEOxOdXOZsRXzI26mC+3q 0b7l4cb1/9C1mrgmE8dq56g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdesaWhCuv7esuia0635WF3LhGGT5ZPuloOg6PSgF6SoPCSHB+kWjFQkX4Fsyg1ydFzKMs11Q== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:710f:: with SMTP id z15-v6mr18373143qto.387.1531141925282; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 06:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4898:6808:13e:4d64:6d41:6305:74de? ([2001:4898:8010:0:369a:6d41:6305:74de]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e1-v6sm3118354qkd.15.2018.07.09.06.12.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Jul 2018 06:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] object_id part 14 To: Jacob Keller , "brian m. carlson" Cc: Git mailing list , Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , Eric Sunshine , Michael Haggerty References: <20180708233638.520172-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> From: Derrick Stolee Message-ID: <1438bdfd-cb13-8da4-2dd2-16362b242ff3@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:12:03 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 7/8/2018 11:12 PM, Jacob Keller wrote: > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 4:39 PM brian m. carlson > wrote: >> This is the fourteenth series of patches to switch to using struct >> object_id and the_hash_algo. This series converts several core pieces >> to use struct object_id, including the oid* and hex functions. >> >> All of these patches have been tested with both SHA-1 and a 256-bit >> hash. >> > I read through the series, and didn't spot anything odd, except for > the question about reasoning for why we use memcmp directly over using > hashcmp. I don't think that's any sort of blocker, it just seemed an > odd decision to me. I also read through the series and only found the 100/200 constants confusing. Not worth blocking on, but I'm CC'ing Michael Haggerty to comment if he knows how the magic 100 was computed. Thanks, -Stolee