On 02/12/2015 12:25 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> When processing the reflog of a symbolic ref, hold the lock on the
>>>> symbolic reference itself, not on the reference that it points to.
>>>
>>> I am not sure if that makes sense.
>>> So when expiring HEAD, you want to have a .git/HEAD.lock file
>>> instead of a .git/refs/heads/master.lock file?
>>>
>>> What would happen if there is a concurrent modification
>>> to the master branch?
>>
>> The HEAD may be pointing at 'master' and the other party that is
>> trying to modify it would fail when it tries to update the reflog
>> for HEAD thanks to HEAD.lock being held by us. The HEAD may be
>> pointing at 'next' and the other part that updates 'master' would
>> not try to modify HEAD reflog and we do not conflict.
>>
>> At least, I think that is the rationale behind this change.
>
> That makes sense! Do we have documentation on symrefs?
>
> Originally I was wondering if this would make things
> complicated for symbolic branches which are not HEAD.
> Then you could update the branch pointed to, because it
> has no lock as the lock is on the symref. On the other hand
> this seems to be an improvement, as you cannot move the
> symref itself, as it has the lock and we don't really have other
> symrefs?
The convention is that holding lock $GIT_DIR/$refname.lock (where
$refname might be, for example, "HEAD" or "refs/heads/master") protects
two things:
* The loose-reference file $GIT_DIR/$refname
* The reflog file $GIT_DIR/logs/$refname
And this makes sense:
Suppose that HEAD is refs/heads/master. These two thing have independent
reflogs, so there is no reason that one process can't be expiring the
reflog of HEAD while another expires the reflog of refs/heads/master.
The behavior before this patch was that the reflog for "HEAD" was
modified while holding the reflog for "refs/heads/master". This is too
strict and would make those two processes contend unnecessarily.
I can't think of a reason that the current behavior is unsafe. But it's
more restrictive than necessary, and more confusing than necessary. My
guess is that it was unintended (i.e., a bug). It dates from
68db31cc28 (2007-05-09) git-update-ref: add --no-deref option for
overwriting/detaching ref
which initially added the REF_NODEREF constant and probably forgot that
the new flag should be used in this invocation.
However, another important question is whether other Git implementations
have copied this unusual locking policy. If so, that would be a reason
not to change it. I just pinged the libgit2 maintainer to find out their
policy. Maybe you could find out about JGit?
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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