Thomas Rast <tr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I spoke too soon; it breaks the test I wrote to cover this case, for a
> reason that gives me a headache.
>
> When we hit the conditional
>
>>>> - if (!one->sha1_valid ||
>>>> - reuse_worktree_file(name, one->sha1, 1)) {
>>>> + if (!S_ISGITLINK(one->mode) &&
>>>> + (!one->sha1_valid ||
>>>> + reuse_worktree_file(name, one->sha1, 1))) {
>
> sha1_valid=0 for the submodule on the worktree side of the diff. The
> reason is that we start out with sha1_valid=0 and sha1=000..000 for the
> worktree side of all dirty entries, which makes sense at that point. We
> later set the sha1 by looking inside the submodule in
> diff_fill_sha1_info(), but we never set sha1_valid. So the above
> conditional will now trigger on the !one->sha1_valid arm, completely
> defeating the change to reuse_worktree_file().
>
> We can fix it like below, but it feels a bit wrong to me. Are
> submodules the only case where it makes sense to set sha1_valid when we
> fill the sha1?
The meaning of filespec->sha1_valid is "Is it known that the
filespec->sha1 and filespec->mode field should be used?"; I agree
that this feels wrong.
Which means that the previous one was wrong, and your original was
the right approach. I'll drop the update.
Thanks.
>
> diff.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git i/diff.c w/diff.c
> index dabf913..cf7281d 100644
> --- i/diff.c
> +++ w/diff.c
> @@ -3081,6 +3082,8 @@ static void diff_fill_sha1_info(struct diff_filespec *one)
> die_errno("stat '%s'", one->path);
> if (index_path(one->sha1, one->path, &st, 0))
> die("cannot hash %s", one->path);
> + if (S_ISGITLINK(one->mode))
> + one->sha1_valid = 1;
> }
> }
> else
--
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