From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CE81F4D7 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 21:33:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="MZT+AxTb"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348761AbiFJVdS (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:33:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59330 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S243046AbiFJVdQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:33:16 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD9FAD5F for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E67193732; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:33:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=VJ0lAR6Kkm2v HJu1x+CQIPE2F2nlWdfTzOkmA22XLpc=; b=MZT+AxTbkLnUHkVZi68xrB+hkC6g qWVwQFB6hw0Rh2PoELwFlIEPQPsuv/duS5f/cKhIGp+SC4rkJcH/Kg2NJCoNxrVd Wfb64DEX1vzSTV1AyrIdO8nKoKYPEgbjPgXvVvThyFSP7Ji4KhJ9/EvQMF01W6zK RNMvSCkSMONiR20= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA05193730; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:33:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.92.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64F7019372C; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:33:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe Cc: Han Xin , avarab@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, neerajsi@microsoft.com, newren@gmail.com, philipoakley@iee.email, stolee@gmail.com, worldhello.net@gmail.com, Neeraj Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 2/7] object-file.c: do fsync() and close() before post-write die() References: <0b9bc499-18c7-e8ab-5c89-f9e1a98685bc@web.de> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:33:07 -0700 In-Reply-To: <0b9bc499-18c7-e8ab-5c89-f9e1a98685bc@web.de> (=?utf-8?Q?=22R?= =?utf-8?Q?en=C3=A9?= Scharfe"'s message of "Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:10:17 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EBA61ACC-E904-11EC-980D-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Ren=C3=A9 Scharfe writes: > Am 10.06.22 um 16:46 schrieb Han Xin: >> From: =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason >> >> Change write_loose_object() to do an fsync() and close() before the >> oideq() sanity check at the end. This change re-joins code that was >> split up by the die() sanity check added in 748af44c63e (sha1_file: be >> paranoid when creating loose objects, 2010-02-21). >> >> I don't think that this change matters in itself, if we called die() >> it was possible that our data wouldn't fully make it to disk, but in >> any case we were writing data that we'd consider corrupted. It's >> possible that a subsequent "git fsck" will be less confused now. > > This is done before renaming the file, so git fsck is going to see (at > most) a tmp_obj_?????? file, which it ignores in either case, right? Yes, I thought I pointed that out in my review on the previous round, but I missed that it was still here in this round X-<. Thanks for noticing.