On 2/25/24 8:10 AM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
+ if (!memcmp(name, canonical_path.buf, canonical_path.len)) { + strbuf_release(&canonical_path); + /* + * NEEDSWORK: Our caller already tried an exact match + * and failed to find one. They called us to do an + * ICASE match, so we should never get an exact match, + * so we could promote this to a BUG() here if we + * wanted to. It doesn't hurt anything to just return + * 0 and go on becaus we should never get here. Or we + * could just get rid of the memcmp() and this "if" + * clause completely. + */ + return 0; /* should not happen */In very very theory, there may be a race-condition, when a directory is renamed very fast, more than once. I don't think, that the "it did not match exactly, but now it matches" is a problem. Question: Does it make sense to just remove this ? And, may be, find out that the "corrected spelling (tm)" of "DIR1" is not "dir1", neither "Dir1", but, exactly, "DIR1" ? Would that be a problem ?
I just meant that the dir-name-hash that we computed when we loaded the index found an exact-case match here that wasn't found when called index_name_pos() and the negative "pos" didn't point to this exact-case prefix. This should not happen. Yeah I didn't think it should be a fatal condition, but since it shouldn't happen, we can make it a BUG() and see. Jeff
