Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I don't know if we wanted to capture any of the reasoning behind using
> error() here or not. Frankly, I'm not sure how to argue for it
> succinctly. :) I'm happy with letting it live on in the list archive.
Are you talking about the "philosophical" thing?
Because we cannot quite tell between the two cases (one is error--we
wrote or we thought we wrote, but we cannot find it, the other is
dubious--somebody was racing with us in the filesystem), I think it
is reasonable to err on the safer side, even though an error abort
while doing "as we know we wrote the thing that match the index, we
might as well lstat and mark the cache entry as up-to-date" might be
a bit irritating.
>> diff --git a/entry.c b/entry.c
>> index f879758c73..6d9de3a5aa 100644
>> --- a/entry.c
>> +++ b/entry.c
>> @@ -341,7 +341,9 @@ static int write_entry(struct cache_entry *ce,
>> if (state->refresh_cache) {
>> assert(state->istate);
>> if (!fstat_done)
>> - lstat(ce->name, &st);
>> + if (lstat(ce->name, &st) < 0)
>> + return error_errno("unable stat just-written file %s",
>> + ce->name);
>
> s/unable stat/unable to stat/, I think.
Thanks.
