Re: GIT 1.6.0-rc1

From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 30, 2008, 06:10 UTC
Message-ID: <20080730061012.GA4437@blimp.local>
In-Reply-To: <7vmyk0bb5r.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano, Wed, Jul 30, 2008 00:03:44 +0200:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Alex, I ran the full test with this, but only on Linux boxes; obviously
> >> not on any flavor of Windows.  I think it is correct, and the "first line
> >> of defence" fix is the same as your patch, so I'd assume it would work for
> >> you as well.  But extra eyeballs are always appreciated.
> >
> > Well, it works on Cygwin too. And I had my eyeballs on the code
> > (wondered first if it will cause more fs accesses than before: it
> > will, in the racy check. Which is correct, AFAICT)
> 
> I thought racy check won't even trigger for gitlinks, no?
>

I didn't know. But now, come to think of it, there wouldn't be much point - the gitlinks are always compared by content, aren't they?

Show 11 quoted lines

> ce_modified_check_fs() has 3 call sites:
> 
>  - the call site in ie_match_stat() is protected with is_racy_timestamp()
>    that is always false for gitlinks;
> 
>  - the call site in ie_modified() we just took care of in the current
>    thread;
> 
>  - the other call site is in ce_smudge_racily_clean_entry(), which is
>    called from write_index() but it also is protected with
>    is_racy_timestamp() that is always false for gitlinks.

So, the change in ce_modified_check_fs is not really needed, because the gitlink case is never executed?