Hi Junio,
On 2015-10-06 00:15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
>>>> + && !p->do_not_close)
>>>> + close_pack_fd(p);
>>>
>>> I wonder how this do_not_close bit should interact with "we are
>>> shutting down (or we are spawning another to do the real work, while
>>> we won't do anything useful anymore), so close everything down".
>>
>> The `close_all_packs()` function is meant for the use case where you
>> really close all the packs, no question asked.
>>
>> I cannot think of a use case where it would make sense to try to be
>> gentle, yet still ask for *all* of the packs to be closed. Maybe you
>> can think of one to convince me that it might make sense to respect
>> the `do_not_close` flag in such a function? Because so far, I am
>> totally unconvinced.
>
> Do not wait for being convinced forever, as I am not interested in
> convincing you either way. Decision by made-up examples or lack of
> imagination is a waste of time ;-).
>
> My earlier "I wonder" leads me to totally different conclusion,
> which is "we declare that it is a bug for any caller to call
> close-all-packs while marking any open pack with do_not_close bit".
>
> Which merely means that while iterating over packs in the
> "close-all" loop, we should throw a die("BUG") at the caller if that
> bit is on. That way, we won't have to rely on "we did not think of
> a good use case so we unconditionally closed the packs without
> telling the remainder of the system, hopefully we broke nothing."
I just sent another iteration out that adds this sanity check.
Ciao,
Dscho
--
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