From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22438202DD for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751120AbdJBEOF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2017 00:14:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:49087 "EHLO mail-pf0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750770AbdJBEOE (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2017 00:14:04 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f177.google.com with SMTP id n24so2335014pfk.5 for ; Sun, 01 Oct 2017 21:14:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a82NlQiZpDbPHGOAXQaJsTsvSWs/rtfUkIDDcP6z9/M=; b=YdD9orh2Q5EyVIlsR8PVdUaaisz0nJEMnbKHYxAd40E1gDHQcqDQnUyCtSfOP9JJvQ QGNx21TnrP/76mOHCa1r27GpLI0OK8eB8w5rna8l1rbsTQF3YBKvl2vRYYZ2DrIjgdrM JTHBvVzIBoUOYPgkWp7s0Zvu1kA9hCVAWnmhiAczC0PGMDBiTN761KLjFe98+mJB1pkP MgIei3pn65aWQqIXYwIdh0NTiJ7UzqaM0y/Wjas4WhMMEl3eRQyh9Mjhj3hjy123bqvT LFttEfo44+4EyGOadHm/e2zTHMECjL0n99zCj+IrGoTIAlfn5ei6vjixeml1DwBTW/rE +FMQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a82NlQiZpDbPHGOAXQaJsTsvSWs/rtfUkIDDcP6z9/M=; b=U3OKP3eOSGiZe5CAIrQo+goAnQXo3wWYH6pit6+18vL8W7YiDtqGp/pITNLqW/RjRk yO3Fsv5efGilFYIG3GAA4oED6rimeIphI1wuYaCS955hONtbYbdZVm74Dq+xAa+oHToc Le1HbxA8qs3XODt4mmAiWSFi744+ciohSfgQLwCsyq6d2e8CLvF0jCySdPsRQ0NMw8h3 ippMfWgs0WGPf5LFQMA3nTZTbfZysPJEsuAEhG3MOjYPAhhqgMTmzi2D5mwYEP828ZLv 9XEB/CPKkhdBpgy08OxAdSlXQW0A02Q4HxCI7PE3coqLWwFpwIDQig1miMIxIKrribcK 2zPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUh9O0nRRg+9UNpHjRaKkMcBlrFIxaIpsfAZ+mlYQ5CrDqKZLrqH KDE/dwrft1g1uSfLN5QtFwdwlu43Ekyk2VvZfHA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCdGOd191EGWhPEv3p0ctGinl4PDvZ6iBldAvZqhJsh9hjp9GfEAxmsR70GJFMAH2qmuU7YrbO6meGVNQ2PbfI= X-Received: by 10.101.81.135 with SMTP id h7mr11759843pgq.48.1506917643786; Sun, 01 Oct 2017 21:14:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.156.137 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 21:14:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_=C3=85gren?= Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:14:03 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] read-cache: require flags for `write_locked_index()` To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git Mailing List , =?UTF-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41jIER1eQ==?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 2 October 2017 at 05:49, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Martin =C3=85gren writes: > >> ... Instead, require that one of the >> flags is set. Adjust documentation and the assert we already have for >> checking that we don't have too many flags. Add a macro `HAS_SINGLE_BIT` >> (inspired by `HAS_MULTI_BITS`) to simplify this check and similar checks >> in the future. > > I do not have a strong opinion against this approach, but if > something can take only one of two values, wouldn't it make more > sense to express it as a single boolean, I wonder. Then there is no > need to invent a cute HAS_SINGLE_BIT() macro, either. > > "commit and leave it open" cannot be expressed with such a scheme, > but with the HAS_SINGLE_BIT() scheme it can't anyway, so... I did briefly consider renaming `flags` to `commit` and re-#defining the two flags to 0 and 1 (or even updating all the callers to use literal zeros and ones). It felt a bit awkward to downgrade `flags` to a bool -- normally we'd to the reverse change. But maybe I shouldn't have rejected that so easily. If we have a feeling we won't need other flags (or the "don't even close the file") any time soon, maybe it'd be good to tighten things up a bit. Thanks for looking at these.