Remove unused valDup

[eliblight]

It turns out valDup is totally unused in the codebase

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 70.19%. Comparing base (168da8b) to head (f30c6bc). Report is 11 commits behind head on unstable.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           unstable     #443      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     70.22%   70.19%   -0.04%     
============================================
  Files           109      109              
  Lines         59956    59958       +2     
============================================
- Hits          42104    42086      -18     
- Misses        17852    17872      +20     

Files	Coverage Δ
src/cluster_legacy.c	86.35% <ø> (-0.11%)	:arrow_down:
src/config.c	78.31% <ø> (ø)
src/dict.c	97.43% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:
src/eval.c	56.02% <ø> (ø)
src/expire.c	96.51% <ø> (ø)
src/functions.c	95.58% <ø> (ø)
src/kvstore.c	96.79% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:
src/latency.c	80.15% <ø> (ø)
src/module.c	9.65% <ø> (ø)
src/sentinel.c	0.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 4 more

... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

[madolson]

As mentioned on slack, can you run the performance test again with more keys and post the updated performance here. As long as there is a meaningful difference, I think it would be worth pulling it.

[eliblight]

For random key and small packets we will see some improvement. For larger packet the improvement is overshadowed by the overall load and is no longer measurable (though logic say it must be there however small).

[madolson]

@eliblight Can you fix the DCO complaint?

[madolson]

Sorry for taking a bit to get back around to this, can you address the merge conflicts and update the PR? I'm happy with it otherwise.

[eliblight]

@madolson your turn