Re: [PATCH 11/16] unpack_trees(): add support for narrow checkout

> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>  > diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
>  > index 2b2c90f..1fc0f83 100644
>  > --- a/cache.h
>  > +++ b/cache.h
>  > @@ -167,6 +167,9 @@ struct cache_entry {
>  >  #define CE_HASHED    (0x100000)
>  >  #define CE_UNHASHED  (0x200000)
>  >
>  > +/* Only remove in work directory, not index */
>  > +#define CE_WD_REMOVE (0x400000)
>  > +
>  >  /*
>  >   * Extended on-disk flags
>  >   */
>  > diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
>  > index e59d144..968cc98 100644
>  > --- a/unpack-trees.c
>  > +++ b/unpack-trees.c
>  > @@ -96,6 +96,15 @@ static int check_updates(struct unpack_trees_options *o)
>  >       if (o->update && o->verbose_update) {
>  >               for (total = cnt = 0; cnt < index->cache_nr; cnt++) {
>  >                       struct cache_entry *ce = index->cache[cnt];
>  > +
>  > +                     if (ce->ce_flags & CE_WD_REMOVE) {
>  > +                             total++;
>  > +                             continue;
>  > +                     }
>  > +
>  > +                     if (ce_no_checkout(ce))
>  > +                             continue;
>  > +
>  >                       if (ce->ce_flags & (CE_UPDATE | CE_REMOVE))
>  >                               total++;
>  >               }
>
>
> This check for ce_no_checkout() before the existing check to see if
>  CE_UPDATE and/or CE_REMOVE are on puzzles me (you have the same check
>  sequence in later loop that does the actualy worktree updates).  If
>  apply_narrow_checkout() check is working correctly, would we ever give
>  CE_UPDATE and/or CE_REMOVE bits to a cache entry with CE_NO_CHECKOUT set?
>
>  IOW, I think this extra check is Ok as it is expected to be no-op when
>  combined with the existing check, but it leaves me wondering if it is
>  hiding some codepath that incorrectly sets CE_UPDATE/CE_REMOVE to an entry
>  outside the narrow checkout area.