Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Consolidate code to close a pack's file descriptor

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
>>>> +				&& !p->do_not_close)
>>>> +				close_pack_fd(p);
>>>
>>> I wonder how this do_not_close bit should interact with "we are
>>> shutting down (or we are spawning another to do the real work, while
>>> we won't do anything useful anymore), so close everything down".
>>
>> The `close_all_packs()` function is meant for the use case where you
>> really close all the packs, no question asked.
>>
>> I cannot think of a use case where it would make sense to try to be
>> gentle, yet still ask for *all* of the packs to be closed. Maybe you
>> can think of one to convince me that it might make sense to respect
>> the `do_not_close` flag in such a function? Because so far, I am
>> totally unconvinced.
> 
> Do not wait for being convinced forever, as I am not interested in
> convincing you either way.  Decision by made-up examples or lack of
> imagination is a waste of time ;-).
> 
> My earlier "I wonder" leads me to totally different conclusion,
> which is "we declare that it is a bug for any caller to call
> close-all-packs while marking any open pack with do_not_close bit".
> 
> Which merely means that while iterating over packs in the
> "close-all" loop, we should throw a die("BUG") at the caller if that
> bit is on.  That way, we won't have to rely on "we did not think of
> a good use case so we unconditionally closed the packs without
> telling the remainder of the system, hopefully we broke nothing."