Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] core: convert build-time USE_NSEC into runtime core.useNanosec

> Le 2 sept. 2026 à 03:26, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> a écrit :
> 
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 08:36:22AM -0400, D. Ben Knoble wrote:
> 
>>> This hunk made me wonder if we even need to do any build-time magic here
>>> at all. If your platform doesn't support nanosecond stat entries, then
>>> you're probably not going to ask for core.usenanosec in the first place.
>>> But if you do, I think the code still works; we fake the entries as "0",
>>> so they'd always yield a racy tie, just as if core.usenanosec was
>>> disabled.
>> 
>> At first I thought you meant we fake the cfg->use_nanosec as 0; it
>> took me a moment to realize you mean that we fake the index entries as
>> 0ns. (That is what you mean, right?)
> 
> Yeah, sorry to be unclear. I meant that we still have this code:
> 
>  #ifdef NO_NSEC
>  #define ST_CTIME_NSEC(st) 0
>  #define ST_MTIME_NSEC(st) 0
> 
> So we are free to pretend that stat nsecs exist and compare them.
> 
>> In that case, yes, I suppose it would work. Might be confusing in a
>> debugger to see use_nanosec set and checked, though?
> 
> Maybe. Looking at the list of NO_NSEC flags in config.mak.uname, I
> suspect it's a pretty small population in the first place.
> 
>> Hm, yeah. I haven't thought too hard either about the interactions
>> where you toggle core.usenanosec on and off, but giving it an initial
>> think they seem fine. Unlike this hypothetical case, when it's off we
>> don't look at the ns fields, so I don't think we end up with any false
>> negatives.
>> 
>> And in this hypothetical, by restricting the option parsing we avoid
>> reading the ns values on unsupported platforms, I think?
> 
> I'd have to double check, but I thought that even without USE_NSEC (and
> thus even with your new core.usenanosec off) we still read and store the
> nanosecond values in the index, as long as the platform supports it (and
> if not, then we use those "0" fallback values).
> 
> So they are always there in the index. I guess the same odd sequence
> applies even today. If you:
> 
>  1. Build with NO_NSEC and get "fake" 0 values in your index.
> 
>  2. Re-build without NO_NSEC, and also enable USE_NSEC. Now we get
>     _real_ values when we stat(), and compare them to the fake values
>     in the index.
> 
> Now the index values appear up to 1-second older than they actually are.
> Which could maybe yield a racy miss of an update? Probably not for
> stat-freshness (where we want an exact match), but maybe for some index
> vs entry racy-git comparison. I didn't think that hard about it, because
> at some point this sequence is just kind of insane.
> 
>> The build-time conditional _does_ mean that if your distro (e.g.)
>> provides a NO_NSEC build, you can't access the core.usenanosec feature
>> without compiling yourself, even if your platform supports it. But I
>> haven't thought too hard either about what it looks like to get rid of
>> NO_NSEC entirely, and I'm not totally sure if that's a good idea.
> 
> You couldn't access it even if core.usenanosec is supported in the
> build, because your fake nsec values would all be "0" and it's
> effectively a noop. ;)
> 
> My suggestion wasn't really about supporting more cases, but just about
> making the code simpler by having one less #ifdef. But like I said
> earlier, we can't get rid of the NO_NSEC knob entirely, so it's probably
> not worth worrying about the one #ifdef either way.
> 
> -Peff