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-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8DD01F463 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727684AbfLCXUI (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:20:08 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:37884 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1727576AbfLCXUI (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:20:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 18012 invoked by uid 109); 3 Dec 2019 23:20:08 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 23:20:08 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 20432 invoked by uid 111); 3 Dec 2019 23:24:13 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 18:24:13 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:20:07 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: "Patrick Marlier (pamarlie)" , Jonathan Tan , "git@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-pack: use OBJECT_INFO_QUICK to check negative objects Message-ID: <20191203232007.GA30535@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20191127123211.GG22221@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 09:08:32AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Interestingly, upload-pack does not use OBJECT_INFO_QUICK when it's > > getting oids from the other side. But I think it could possibly benefit > > in the same way. Nobody seems to have noticed. Perhaps it simply comes > > up less, as servers would tend to have more objects than their clients? > > Makes me wonder how many times we wre bitten by the fact that > INFO_SKIP_FETCH_OBJECT does not imply INFO_QUICK. Perhaps most of > the users of INFO_SKIP_FETCH_OBJECT wants to use INFO_FOR_PREFETCH? We seem to be discussing this about once a month lately. :) There's some good digging by Jonathan in: https://public-inbox.org/git/20191011220822.154063-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/ That thread is also about this exact same spot, which is why I cc'd him originally. I do tend to think that QUICK ought to imply SKIP_FETCH. I'm slightly negative on sprinkling FOR_PREFETCH everywhere, because the name implies to me that we are telling object_info() that we are pre-fetching. Which yes, has the effect we want, but I think is misleading. So we'd want to change the name of the combined flag, I think, or just let QUICK imply SKIP_FETCH and use that more thoroughly. -Peff