Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano, Tue, Jul 29, 2008 10:36:19 +0200: >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> > Ok, I took a deeper look at the codepaths involved. Although it does work >> > around the issue, I do not think your patch alone is the "correct" one in >> > the longer term. > > Thought so. I just didn't know the code around > >> > It needs a bit of explanation, and the explanation won't be exactly >> > "plain, small and short", unfortunately. >> >> Alex, I ran the full test with this, but only on Linux boxes; obviously >> not on any flavor of Windows. I think it is correct, and the "first line >> of defence" fix is the same as your patch, so I'd assume it would work for >> you as well. But extra eyeballs are always appreciated. > > Well, it works on Cygwin too. And I had my eyeballs on the code > (wondered first if it will cause more fs accesses than before: it > will, in the racy check. Which is correct, AFAICT) I thought racy check won't even trigger for gitlinks, no? ce_modified_check_fs() has 3 call sites: - the call site in ie_match_stat() is protected with is_racy_timestamp() that is always false for gitlinks; - the call site in ie_modified() we just took care of in the current thread; - the other call site is in ce_smudge_racily_clean_entry(), which is called from write_index() but it also is protected with is_racy_timestamp() that is always false for gitlinks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
