Michael Haggerty wrote: > Thanks for all of the information. > > On 06/15/2013 10:13 PM, Ramsay Jones wrote: >> Michael Haggerty wrote: >>> *This patch series must be built on top of mh/reflife.* [ ... ] >> You may be wondering why clear_packed_ref_cache() is called? Well, that >> is because stat_validity_check() *incorrectly* indicates that the >> packed-refs file has changed. Why does it do that? Well, this is one >> more example of the problems caused by the cygwin schizophrenic stat() >> functions. :( [ARGHHHHHHHHH] >> [ ... ] > So if I understand correctly, all of the above is *without* the > refcounting changes introduced in mh/ref-races? Is so, then it is not > surprising, as this is exactly the sort of problem that the reference > counting is meant to solve. Yes, as I said, this describes the old (non refcounted) series. This particular problem (the segmentation fault) is fixed by the new series (as noted below). [Note, however, that the packed-refs file will still be re-read more often than needed.] >> Now, turning to the new code, t3211-peel-ref.sh test #7 now works, but >> test #8 still fails... [ ... ] > These "internal error: packed-ref cache cleared while locked" failures > result from an internal consistency check that clear_packed_ref_cache() > is not called while the write lock is held on the packed-refs file. A > call to c_p_r_c() could result from > > * a programming error > > * a determination based on the packed-refs file stat that the file needs > to be re-read > > Judging from what you said about cygwin, I assume that the latter is > happening. Indeed. > It should be impossible, because the current process is > holding packed-refs.lock, and therefore other git processes should > refuse to change the packed-refs file. :-P You are assuming that a single process can't lie to itself ... [ ... ] > Yikes! ECYGWINFAIL. Ah, NO, this should read ECYGWINGITFAIL. This is a self-inflicted wound; it has nothing much to do with cygwin. I should not have assumed that you knew what I meant by "schizophrenic stat() functions" above; sorry about that! If you are interested, then the following commits may be useful reading: adbc0b6, 7faee6b, 7974843, 05bab3ea, 924aaf3e and b8a97333. [ ... ] >> I haven't checked the remaining test failures to see if they are >> caused by this code (I don't think so, but ...), but this failure >> is clearly a cygwin specific issue. > > Thanks again for the testing and analysis, So, unless you feel the need to fix this yourself, you can probably ignore this issue for now. I will hopefully find time to fix it up before this topic progresses to next. (Although I don't have any feeling for the time-frame of this topic). HTH ATB, Ramsay Jones -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html