Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> +int convert_to_sparse(struct index_state *istate, int flags)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * If the index is already sparse, empty, or otherwise
>> + * cannot be converted to sparse, do not convert.
>> + */
>> + if (istate->sparse_index || !istate->cache_nr ||
>> + !is_sparse_index_allowed(istate, flags))
>> + return 0;
Shouldn't we also at least do this? Blindly blowing away the entire
cache-tree and rebuilding it from scratch may be hiding a latent bug
somewhere else, but is never supposed to be needed, and is a huge
waste of computational resources.
I say "at least" here, because a cache tree that is partially valid
should be safely salvageable---at least that was the intention back
when I designed the subsystem.
sparse-index.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git c/sparse-index.c w/sparse-index.c
index bc3ee358c6..a95c3386f3 100644
--- c/sparse-index.c
+++ w/sparse-index.c
@@ -188,17 +188,19 @@ int convert_to_sparse(struct index_state *istate, int flags)
if (index_has_unmerged_entries(istate))
return 0;
- /* Clear and recompute the cache-tree */
- cache_tree_free(&istate->cache_tree);
- /*
- * Silently return if there is a problem with the cache tree update,
- * which might just be due to a conflict state in some entry.
- *
- * This might create new tree objects, so be sure to use
- * WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK.
- */
- if (cache_tree_update(istate, WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK))
- return 0;
+ if (!cache_tree_fully_valid(&istate->cache_tree)) {
+ /* Clear and recompute the cache-tree */
+ cache_tree_free(&istate->cache_tree);
+ /*
+ * Silently return if there is a problem with the cache tree update,
+ * which might just be due to a conflict state in some entry.
+ *
+ * This might create new tree objects, so be sure to use
+ * WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK.
+ */
+ if (cache_tree_update(istate, WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK))
+ return 0;
+ }
remove_fsmonitor(istate);
