On 2/17/22 11:27 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Move fsmonitor config settings to a new and opaque
`struct fsmonitor_settings` structure. Add a lazily-loaded pointer
to this into `struct repo_settings`
Create an `enum fsmonitor_mode` type in `struct fsmonitor_settings` to
represent the state of fsmonitor. This lets us represent which, if
any, fsmonitor provider (hook or IPC) is enabled.
Create `fsm_settings__get_*()` getters to lazily look up fsmonitor-
related config settings.
Get rid of the `core_fsmonitor` global variable. Move the code to
lookup the existing `core.fsmonitor` config value into the fsmonitor
settings.
Create a hook pathname variable in `struct fsmonitor-settings` and
only set it when in hook mode.
Extend the definition of `core.fsmonitor` to be either a boolean
or a hook pathname. When true, the builtin FSMonitor is used.
When false or unset, no FSMonitor (neither builtin nor hook) is
used.
The existing `core_fsmonitor` global variable was used to store the
pathname to the fsmonitor hook *and* it was used as a boolean to see
if fsmonitor was enabled. This dual usage and global visibility leads
to confusion when we add the IPC-based provider. So lets hide the
details in fsmonitor-settings.c and let it decide which provider to
use in the case of multiple settings. This avoids cluttering up
repo-settings.c with these private details.
A future commit in builtin-fsmonitor series will add the ability to
disqualify worktrees for various reasons, such as being mounted from a
remote volume, where fsmonitor should not be started. Having the
config settings hidden in fsmonitor-settings.c allows such worktree
restrictions to override the config values used.
Apart from my forward-compatibility concern regarding interpreting
`core.fsmonitor` as a Boolean, this looks good. Just one thing:
diff --git a/fsmonitor.h b/fsmonitor.h
index f20d72631d7..f9201411aa7 100644
--- a/fsmonitor.h
+++ b/fsmonitor.h
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
#include "cache.h"
#include "dir.h"
+#include "fsmonitor-settings.h"
extern struct trace_key trace_fsmonitor;
@@ -57,7 +58,11 @@ int fsmonitor_is_trivial_response(const struct strbuf *query_result);
*/
static inline int is_fsmonitor_refreshed(const struct index_state *istate)
{
- return !core_fsmonitor || istate->fsmonitor_has_run_once;
+ struct repository *r = istate->repo ? istate->repo : the_repository;
I see this repeated a few times. Would it maybe make sense to change the
signature of the `fsm_settings__*()` functions to accept an index instead
of a repository?
I think is just me being paranoid -- testing istate->repo for null
and assuming the_repository if necessary. I'm wondering if it is
always safe to just do
fsm_mode = fsm_settings__get_mode(istate->repo);
(or maybe put the null check inside the fsm_settings__*() functions.
changing the signature of those fsm_* functions seems wrong since they
are associated with a repo and not an index.
Jeff
