Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Pretty much the same places you would also use CE_MATCH_IGNORE_VALID > and CE_MATCH_IGNORE_SKIP_WORKTREE which serve the same role for those > features. That is generally when you are about to overwrite data so > want to be *really* sure you have what you think you have. Now that makes me worried gravely. IGNORE_VALID is ignored in these places because we have been burned by end-users lying to us. IGNORE_SKIP_WORKTREE must be ignored because we know that the working tree state does not match the "reality" the index wants to have. The fact that the code treats the status reported and kept up to date by fsmonitor the same way as these two implies that it is merely advisory and cannot be trusted? Is that the reason why we tell the codepath with IGNORE_FSMONITOR to ignore the state fsmonitor reported and check the state ourselves? Oh, wait... > The other place I used it was in preload_index(). In that case, I > didn't want to trigger the call to refresh_fsmonitor() as > preload_index() is about trying to do a fast precompute of state for > the bulk of the index entries but is not required for correctness as > refresh_cache_ent() will ensure any "missed" by preload_index() are > up-to-date if/when that is needed. That is a very valid design decision. So IGNORE_FSMONITOR is, unlike IGNORE_VALID and IGNORE_SKIP_WORKTREE, to tell us "do not bother asking fsmonitor to refresh the state of this entry--it is OK for us to use a slightly stale information"? That would make sense as an optimization, but that does not mesh well with the previous "we need to be really really sure" usecase. That one wants "we do not trust fsmonitor, so do not bother asking to refresh; we will do so ourselves", which would not help the "we can use slightly stale one and that is OK" usecase. Puzzled...
