From: Steffen Prohaska Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:17:26 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't display crlf warning twice Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1200267979-17683-1-git-send-email-dpotapov@gmail.com> Dimitry, Thanks for finding the code path that leads to double printing the warning. Your traces reveal that it is a racy condition that can trigger the double warnings. In my test cases this apparently does not happen, at least not on my machine. Do you have a test case that reliably triggers the second call to convert_to_git()? On Jan 14, 2008, at 12:46 AM, Dmitry Potapov wrote: > 'git add' could call crlf_to_git() twice, and this caused that the > same > crlf warning being display twice. The first time crlf_to_git() is > called > when a file is added to index, and it could be called the second time > during writing the index. > > This patches sets safe_crlf to false before the second call. This would certainly work. However I do not think it is the right place to fix ... > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Potapov > --- > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 05:30:47PM +0100, Steffen Prohaska wrote: >> _ >> I mentioned earlier that crlf_to_git() would be called twice. >> Unfortunately, >> I can't reproduce this behaviour and are not even sure if it ever >> happend. > > I think I have found the cause. It can be seen from the following > trace: > > ============== > #0 crlf_to_git (path=0x814b37e "a", src=0xb7fb4000 "Hello\r\nHello > \r\nHello\n", len=20, buf=0xbfad504c, action=-1) at convert.c:89 > #1 0x080e0454 in convert_to_git (path=0x814b37e "a", > src=0xb7fb4000 "Hello\r\nHello\r\nHello\n", len=20, dst=0xbfad504c) > at convert.c:578 > #2 0x080b7194 in index_fd (sha1=0xbfad508c "", fd=7, > st=0xbfad50d8, write_object=0, type=OBJ_BLOB, path=0x814b37e "a") > at sha1_file.c:2345 Here, index_fd() is called with write_object=0 ... > #3 0x080a7dd4 in ce_compare_data (ce=0x814b340, st=0xbfad50d8) at > read-cache.c:56 > #4 0x080a8045 in ce_modified_check_fs (ce=0x814b340, > st=0xbfad50d8) at read-cache.c:111 > #5 0x080aa66d in ce_smudge_racily_clean_entry (ce=0x814b340) at > read-cache.c:1121 > #6 0x080aa79d in write_index (istate=0x814a3e0, newfd=6) at read- > cache.c:1177 > #7 0x0804c66a in cmd_add (argc=1, argv=0xbfad6408, prefix=0x0) at > builtin-add.c:261 > ============== > #0 crlf_to_git (path=0x814b094 "a", src=0xb7fb4000 "Hello\r\nHello > \r\nHello\n", len=20, buf=0xbfad50ec, action=-1) at convert.c:89 > #1 0x080e0454 in convert_to_git (path=0x814b094 "a", > src=0xb7fb4000 "Hello\r\nHello\r\nHello\n", len=20, dst=0xbfad50ec) > at convert.c:578 > #2 0x080b7194 in index_fd (sha1=0x814b368 "", fd=7, st=0xbfad5174, > write_object=1, type=OBJ_BLOB, path=0x814b094 "a") at sha1_file.c:2345 while here index_fd() is called with write_object=1. > #3 0x080b731f in index_path (sha1=0x814b368 "", path=0x814b094 > "a", st=0xbfad5174, write_object=1) at sha1_file.c:2377 > #4 0x080a8c00 in add_file_to_index (istate=0x814a3e0, > path=0x814b094 "a", verbose=0) at read-cache.c:433 > #5 0x0804c640 in cmd_add (argc=1, argv=0xbfad6408, prefix=0x0) at > builtin-add.c:257 > ============== Without digging deeply through the code, this looks to me as if we could base our decision wether to print a warning or not on this difference. My first take is: we should print a warning if write_object=1 and should be quiet if write_object=0. The flag can easily be passed to convert_to_git(). My assumption is that users would only be interested in the warning if data is really written to the repository (and that this is the meaning of write_object=1). But maybe there are cases where a warning is also appropriate even if the data is not written? I don't now. Another question is if we should die() even if write_object=0; or only if write_object=1? Steffen