Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I thought about that briefly yesterday, but the fact that the > write_locked_index() call only happens if !cache_tree_fully_valid() > meant refactoring slightly more to get the helper to also return that > boolean value, and since I was a little unsure of myself with > cache-tree stuff in general I wanted to propose what looked like the > minimally invasive changes first (by which I mean smallest patch). Or have the caller check if cache-tree is fully valid, which is the only case that you can build a tree (and a fully merged index would be fully valid after you do cache_tree_update()). > I'll take a closer look at this path. > ... > So, yeah, I need to put something from those BUG() messages back in; > they clearly helped with that issue, and might help again in the > future. Thanks.
