Thanks for testing it out. The unpack_trees bugfix is especially useful. There's tons of places where we're using ce_uptodate(ce) that could be optimized by checking CE_FSMONITOR_VALID. One example is in run_diff_files in diff-lib.c Should we add a check for CE_FSMONITOR_VALID in all of them? Should we do that in this patch? Or should we take the time to refactor and flesh out bugs in unifying it with CE_UPTODATE? It would be nice to get more opinions. I've taken a look and believe that it will make things a little more complicated to merge it with CE_UPTODATE, especially since it's used in a few places for other reasons like sparse checkouts. On the other hand, I'm a first time contributor, so my perspective towards a large refactor like might be too conservative. On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:12 PM Kevin Willford <Kevin.Willford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 1:07 PM Utsav Shah <utsav@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > I'm getting the same test failures with or without > > GIT_TEST_FSMONITOR=t/t7519/fsmonitor-all and calling refresh_fsmonitor > > in tweak_fsmonitor. Could you share your patch? I'm probably messing > > something up, and I can try taking a look at fixing test cases as well. > > I have the tests passing with the following commit. > > https://github.com/kewillford/git/commit/3b1fdf5a4b1cd1d654b1733ce058faa4f087f75f > > Things to note: > 1. Not sure if fsmonitor was tested with split index so for now I removed that from the > check of entries in fsmonitor bitmap vs the number of cache entries > 2. With these changes update-index was triggering the post-index-change hook with the > updated_skipworktree flag set which it wasn't before. > 3. Copied the fsmonitor_last_update to the result index so the fsmonitor data will be > carried over to the new index in unpack_trees. This is to make sure that the next call > to git will have the fsmonitor data to use. We found that running `git status` after any > command that ran unpack_trees (checkout, reset --hard, etc.) was very slow the first > call but and subsequent calls were fast. > > I'm still testing and reviewing these changes to make sure there isn't something I > have missed and that I made the right changes to the tests that were failing. > > Kevin
