Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: invalidate i-t-a paths after writing trees

> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> An alternative might be to add a "phoney" bit next to "used" in the
>>> cache_tree structure, mark the cache tree as phoney when we skip an
>>> entry marked as CE_REMOVE or CE_ITA, and make the postprocessing
>>> loop this patch adds aware of that bit, instead of iterating over
>>> the index entries; instead, it would recurse the resulting cache
>>> tree and invalidate parts of the tree that have subtrees with the
>>> "phoney" bit set, or something.
>>
>> Yeah, that sounds better.
>
> Did anything happen to this topic after this?