On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:53 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This certainly is more "complete" if simpler than the previous one > ;-) > > In the longer term, we would probably want to enable optimization > using what fsmonitor knows, but as we have seen in the review on > the previous round, this code needs a bit more work than the > original we are reverting here to get it right, and in the shorter > term, hopefully this would do. Yes, I agree we should optimize this in a follow up. One thing I'm not sure about is if we should try to construct `struct stat` using `cache_index`, or we should check for `CE_FSMONITOR_VALID` in a way that `stat` would no longer be needed for those code paths. -- Josip Sokcevic
