On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:34 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 13 2018, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't have any bright idea how to catch the literal _XXXXX file. > > It's a temporary file and will not last long enough for us to verify > > unless we intercept open() calls with LD_PRELOAD. > > Sorry for being unclear. I don't mean how can we catch this specific > bug, that would be uninteresting and hard to test for. > > I'm asking whether the bug in this patch isn't revealing an existing > issue with us not having any tests for N number of sharedindex.* > files. I.e. we have >1 of them, merge them and prune them, don't we? I think we shouldn't have many of them. Usually we should have just one, though it's possible that switching the shared index files feature on and off several times or using temporary index files could create more than one. And there is clean_shared_index_files() which calls should_delete_shared_index() to make sure they are regularly cleaned up. Anyway it's a different topic and according to what we privately discussed I just sent https://public-inbox.org/git/20181116173105.21784-1-chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ to fix the current issue.
