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=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 7B63A215F6 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 21:45:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932675AbcJLVpI (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:45:08 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:61101 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756056AbcJLVo7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:44:59 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D54045898; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:44:58 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=9SWQU+OLZrl4tXAzrQr7/gzQpwc=; b=xFHHKj ZqS2gKgOfOAKcAOYRUs6n9K3SPcpkSZ3S/0s+F69VHr3hk7l1+xmuE+Jgy58krXH y9lRDbDQOG2r30O7/u6QVItNgn1Eh7wDFT7pezs+YgloTF4clNVWwTJSt8d2efDK zZKt7uEjLBRVErd3pQwO/19atSL6o6w5aZptc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=vxenUlfIbwT2XkS59fwE2pAIvsIb0R4g dQuTFF3435q/xAdcGIzNObjDTjHkEkiunhSxaShqKB92zQL3vHvyx2Z0Jkg/V1CP 1digmp6YDlA7iKsrdJ+4ngnlHsQwGOn9PdZURA00iDNg9SG4q+tKlsIErsA+jYJM ab9q6S8jcjM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9534645897; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:44:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0DDD345894; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:44:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: "git\@vger.kernel.org" , Brandon Williams Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] attr: convert to new threadsafe API References: <20161011235951.8358-1-sbeller@google.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:44:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:39:17 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1EC77A16-90C5-11E6-A301-5F377B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Stefan Beller writes: >> >>> This version adds the actual thread safety, >>> that is promised in the documentation, however it doesn't add any optimization, >>> i.e. it's a single global lock. But as we do not expect contention, that is fine. >> >> Because we have to start _somewhere_, I agree it is a good approach >> to first try the simplest implementation and then optimize later, >> but is it an agreed consensus that we do not expect contention? > > I agree on that. Did you mean this is obvious to the reader? I meant to say that "But as we do not expect" sounded like a justification for the approach based on an unwarranted assumption that is not even the list concensus. I do not think it is obvious to the reader that there is no need to worry about contention. It all is outside the log message, so as long as readers understand what we meant from this discussion, that is OK.