On 06/05/2022 17:36, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> + */
>>> +unsigned int munge_st_size(off_t st_size) {
>>> + unsigned int sd_size = st_size;
>>> +
>>> + if(!sd_size && st_size)
> Style.
Ah, the same line / braces choice (as per coding guidelines).
>>> + return 0x80000000;
>>> + else
>>> + return sd_size;
>>> +}
> This may treat non-zero multiple of 4GiB as "not racy", but has
> anybody double checked the concern Réne brought up earlier that a
> 4GiB file that was added and then got rewritten to 2GiB within the
> same second would suddenly start getting treated as not racy?
This is the pre-existing problem, that ~1in 2^31 size changes might not
get noticed for size change. The 0 byte / 4GiB change is an identical
issue, as is changing from 3 bytes to 4GiB+3 bytes, etc., so that's no
worse than before (well maybe twice as 'unlikely').
>
> The patch (the firnal version of it anyway) needs to be accompanied
> by a handful of test additions to tickle corner cases like that.
They'd be protected by the EXPENSIVE prerequisite I would assume.
Any particular test t/txxx that they should be placed in (I'm not that
familiar with the test suit)
--
Philip
