Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> Do we see these CE_UPDATE|CE_WT_REMOVE bits attached to the cache >> >> entries in the o->src_index array when get_progress() is fed the >> >> src_index in the first place? >> > >> > Yes, before calling check_updates(o, o->src_index), update_sparsity() >> > loops over o->src_index and calls apply_sparse_checkout() on each of >> > the non-conflicted cache entries. apply_sparse_checkout() will set >> > either CE_UPDATE or CE_WT_REMOVE whenever items flip from or to having >> > the SKIP_WORKTREE bit set. >> >> Hmph. >> >> I thought that the whole point of splitting o->result from >> o->src_index we did long time ago was to allow us to treat >> o->src_index constant. I hope we haven't broken anything by >> starting to do things like that X-<. > > I think we're safe there. No function started modifying o->src_index > directly; they just modify the index they are passed in. The only > place that passes o->src_index to functions for modification is > update_sparsity(), which unpack_trees() never calls. OK. Thanks for an additional detail. Let's merge it down by -rc1.
