On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> +/*
>> + * Signal that the shared index is used by updating its mtime.
>> + *
>> + * This way, shared index can be removed if they have not been used
>> + * for some time. It's ok to fail to update the mtime if we are on a
>> + * read only file system.
>> + */
>> +void freshen_shared_index(char *base_sha1_hex)
>> +{
>> + const char *shared_index = git_path("sharedindex.%s", base_sha1_hex);
>> + check_and_freshen_file(shared_index, 1);
>
> What happens when this call fails? The function returns 0 if the
> file did not even exist. It also returns 0 if you cannot update its
> timestamp.
Yeah and I don't think it's a problem in either case.
If we cannot update its timestamp, it's not a problem, as we could be
on a read-only file system, and you said in a previous iteration that
we should not even warn in this case.
If the file does not exist, it could be because it has just been
deleted for a good reason, and anyway, if it is a problem that the
shared index file has been deleted, it is better addressed when we
will actually need the shared index file to read something into from
it, rather than just to update its mtime.
> Shouldn't the series be exposing freshen_file() instead _and_ taking
> its error return value seriously?
So what should we do if freshen_file() returns 0 which means that the
freshening failed?
>> +}