URL:
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/455
Title: #455: mmap_cache: make checks independent of input size
mzidek-rh commented:
"""
On 11/23/2017 12:50 PM, lslebodn wrote:
On (23/11/17 11:31), mzidek-rh wrote:
>mzidek-rh commented on this pull request.
>I do not think such optimisation is needed
And I do not think that these checks for corrupted memory cache are needed
since 1.11.90. But I'm fine with having them.
>because it will almost always be evaluated as false
That statement is true also for other checks for "corrupted" mmap cache.
Please avoid cherry picking my sentences in a way that changes the original meaning and
also do not put them in inappropriate context. The statement I said is NOT true for the
checks for corrupted mmap cache, because the whole statement was:
"I do not think such optimisation is needed because it will almost always be
evaluated as false and in case it is evaluated as true it will only save us from doing few
more checks. "
So my point was that we do some computation in order to avoid just a slightly bigger
computation, but we will almost never avoid it anyway. And as we know, the checks for
corrupted mmap cache were not an optimisation, so the statement is simply not applicable
to that case unless you remove part of the statement and put it to a new context. But by
doing that you are creating your own statement that has nothing to do with what I said.
But as I said, I do not dislike the check becuase in my (very subjective) opinion it makes
the code easier to read.
Michal
>and in case it is evaluated as true it will only save us from doing
few more checks. But maybe having this check makes this part of code
more readable (at least it looks that way to me)? So I am OK with it.
>
Thank you for confirmation that you are fine with such check.
LS
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/455#issuecomment-346605877