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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED, 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 698BD1F4B4 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729945AbhANTTu (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:19:50 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:56298 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727956AbhANTTt (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:19:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 16803 invoked by uid 109); 14 Jan 2021 19:19:09 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:19:09 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 17040 invoked by uid 111); 14 Jan 2021 19:19:09 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:19:09 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:19:08 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com, jrnieder@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/20] pack-revindex: introduce a new API Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:06:20PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > + * This function runs in time O(log N) with the number of objects in the pack. > > > > Is it a good idea to commit to such performance characteristics as a > > promise to callers like this (the comment applies to all three > > functions)? > > > > It depends on how a developer is helped by this comment when > > deciding whether to use this function, or find other ways, to > > implement what s/he wants to do. > > I don't mind it. If they all had the same performance characteristics, I > wouldn't be for it, but since they don't, I think that it's good to > know. Peff suggested this back in [1]. Yeah, I asked for this. As somebody who has frequently worked on the code which accesses the revindex (mostly bitmap stuff), I found it useful to understand how expensive the operations were. However, I also know what their runtimes are at this point, and it is not like somebody interested cannot look at the implementation. So it may not be that important. So I do still think it is useful, but if somebody feels strongly against it, I don't mind it being removed. -Peff