On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > We fsync() the file descriptors we're writing out for all the > > auxiliary files, but we don't yet fsync() the file descriptor for > > the containing directory. Therefore our data might have been written > > out, but it's anyone's guess what the state of the directory > > containing the file is after we write the *.idx. > > > > In practice modern OS's are known to be forgiving on that point, so > > this will probably solve races in practice for most users. It will > > almost certainly make them better than they were before when we > > didn't write *.idx files last. We should more generally improve our > > use of fsync() to cover containing directories, but that'll > > hopefully be addressed by some follow-up series. > > I'd probably drop the last paragraph, and replace it with a single > sentence "we may want to fsync the containing directory once after > placing *.idx file in place, but it is outside of the scope of this > series", if I were doing this series. Yep, I think that this makes things clearer, and I prefer it to Ævar's suggestion (which conveys more information than I think is necessary here). Thanks, Taylor
