Re: [PATCH 02/27] sparse-index: implement ensure_full_index()

>
> On 1/26/2021 10:05 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:42 AM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
> > <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> Sparse directory entries have a specific 'ce_mode' value. The macro
> >> S_ISSPARSEDIR(ce) can check if a cache_entry 'ce' has this type. This
> >> ce_mode is not possible with the existing index formats, so we don't
> >> also verify all properties of a sparse-directory entry, which are:
> >>
> >>  1. ce->ce_mode == 01000755
> >
> > This is a weird number.  What's the reason for choosing it?  It looks
> > deceptively close to 0100755, normal executable files, but has the
> > extra 0, meaning that ce->ce_mode & S_IFMT is 0, suggesting it has no
> > file type.
> >
> > Since it's a directory, why not use S_IFDIR (040000)?
> >
> > (GITLINK does use the weird 0160000 value, but it happens to be
> > S_IFLNK | S_IFDIR == 0120000 | 040000, which conveys "it's both a
> > directory and a symlink")
>
> I forget how exactly I came up with these magic constants, but then
> completely forgot to think of them critically because I haven't had
> to look at them in a while. They _are_ important, especially because
> these values affect the file format itself.
>
> I'll think harder on this before submitting a series intended for
> merging.
>
> >>  2. ce->flags & CE_SKIP_WORKTREE is true
> >
> > Makes sense.
> >
> >>  3. ce->name[ce->namelen - 1] == '/' (ends in dir separator)
> >
> > Is there a particular reason for this?  I'm used to seeing names
> > without the trailing slash, both in the index and in tree objects.  I
> > don't know enough to be for or against this idea; just curious at this
> > point.
>
> It's yet another way to distinguish directories from files, but
> there are cases where we do string searches up to a prefix, and
> having these directory separators did help, IIRC.
>
> >>  4. ce->oid references a tree object.
> >
> > Makes sense...but doesn't that suggest we'd want to use ce->ce_mode = 040000?
>
> ...
>
> >> +#define CE_MODE_SPARSE_DIRECTORY 01000755
> >> +#define SPARSE_DIR_MODE 0100
> >
> > Another magic value.  Feels like the commit message should reference
> > this one and why it was picked.  Seems odd to me, and possibly
> > problematic to re-use file permission bits that might collide with
> > files recorded by really old versions of git.  Maybe that's not a
> > concern, though.
> >
> >> +#define S_ISSPARSEDIR(m) ((m)->ce_mode == CE_MODE_SPARSE_DIRECTORY)
> >
> > Should the special sauce apply to ce_flags rather than ce_mode?  Thus,
> > instead of an S_ISSPARSEDIR, perhaps have a ce_sparse_dir macro
> > (similar to ce_skip_worktree) based on a CE_SPARSE_DIR value (similar
> > to CE_SKIP_WORKTREE)?
> >
> > Or, alternatively, do we need a single special state here?  Could we
> > check for a combination of ce_mode == 040000 && ce_skip_worktree(ce)?
>
> The intention was that ce_mode be a unique value that could only
> be assigned to a directory entry, which would then by necessity be
> sparse. Checking both ce_mode and ce_flags seemed wasteful with the
> given assumptions

> ...
>
> >> +       /* Copy back into original index. */
> >> +       memcpy(&istate->name_hash, &full->name_hash, sizeof(full->name_hash));
> >> +       istate->sparse_index = 0;
> >> +       istate->cache = full->cache;
> >
> > Haven't you leaked the original istate->cache here?
>
> Yes, seems so. Will fix.
>
> Thanks,
> -Stolee