On 7/15/26 8:41 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 06:41:17AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/remote-curl.c b/remote-curl.c
index 9e614c5567..2c35dd5240 100644
--- a/remote-curl.c
+++ b/remote-curl.c

@@ -1340,10 +1340,9 @@ static void parse_get(const char *arg)
 	fflush(stdout);
 }
 
-static int push_dav(int nr_spec, const char **specs)
+static int push_dav(const char **specs)
 {
 	struct child_process child = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
-	size_t i;
 
 	child.git_cmd = 1;
 	strvec_push(&child.args, "http-push");

I wonder whether the interface would be even better if we simply passed
around a `const struct strvec *` directly. That makes it explicit what
kind of guarantees we have, and all transitive callers already have one
available anyway.

You mean that passing a managed array instead of a plain NULL-terminated
one would make more places visibly safer at almost no cost?

quoted

@@ -1353,15 +1352,14 @@ static int push_dav(int nr_spec, const char **specs)
 	if (options.verbosity > 1)
 		strvec_push(&child.args, "--verbose");
 	strvec_push(&child.args, url.buf);
-	for (i = 0; i < nr_spec; i++)
-		strvec_push(&child.args, specs[i]);
+	strvec_pushv(&child.args, specs);

I thought that we had something like `strvec_pushvec()` that knew to
also optimize for this case so that we don't have to reallocate the
vector multiple times. And if we had that function it would even be more
efficient to pass it down the stack. But we seemingly don't have it, so
that argument is kind of moot.

We could add one.  Not sure it would make a measurable difference; if
the number of specs is huge there are probably other costs that dwarf
pushing them to a strvec.

I have to admit that the simplicity of strvec_pushv() nudged me towards
using a NULL-terminated array here, though.  So just having a
strvec_pushvec() available could guide towards using the length-limited
strvec instead of a simpler NULL-terminated array (which explodes if
left unterminated).

René