Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> But why is it OK to fail in the first place? If we couldn't link,
>> don't you want to fall back to the lock codepath? After all, the
>> "are we on the same device?" check is to cope with the case where
>> we cannot link and that alternate codepath is supposed to be
>> prepared to handle the "ah, we cannot link" case correctly, no?
>
> Filesystems not supporting hardlinks are one reason. The idea behind
> "locked" is that the new checkout could be on a portable device and we
> don't want to prune its metadata just because the device is not
> plugged in. Checking same device help but even that can't guarantee no
> false positives, unless your only mount point is /. So no I don't
> really think we should go lock whenever link() fails, that would just
> make fewer checkouts prunable.
It just looked wrong to have a logic that goes like this:
if (we detect one case link() can never possibly work) {
do something for a case we do not use link;
} else {
prepare parameters that is used when we do link;
do link() but ignore error;
}
and felt that I would have understood if it were more like this:
prepare parameters that is used when we do link;
if (try link() and it fails) {
do something for a case we do not use link;
}
but I did not mean that was the only alternative to correct the
"wrongness".
I do not think I yet know the motivation behind this step well
enough to further comment---until I read the earlier parts of the
series that lead to this step, so I'll do that first.
Thanks.
--
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