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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413331F453 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 04:57:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726703AbfBIE5P (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 23:57:15 -0500 Received: from mail-it1-f195.google.com ([209.85.166.195]:52553 "EHLO mail-it1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726222AbfBIE5P (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 23:57:15 -0500 Received: by mail-it1-f195.google.com with SMTP id r11so8842187itc.2 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 20:57:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=m7mUW0jqSfdeVQGHqaaS3JAaz6im+BYRwgPnNQyre7o=; b=faqRkyLLXVr630GSwUU+9fveNIzxFAXi11xOs7S3IrgPJ/+3/MvY03HopdEVvNQy81 1Qzwe6em218v5olCzPeNfjUPp6VhWMQOJtZhXgX0wOXG6l0Z6tExNNKRJDjaa2jOs7Tk XVukphx5RpFeCnhvz80TS9xwj2a5TbJnHQ+UNZ4PCYOumjNQUW2gNpnWEHi5bN/QEpbD GsiTFM1TJwyOs8neA90GJLSU/ImevqZKU84avBQx/12i47WAuGo01hxs3pGwK44AAKGK LxhS+VXQklNSF4sqQq/cdzoovJ9fAZ6VZMOeslyOjxtvUo5SstLxV8NCdzqwILqLS47E q/cg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m7mUW0jqSfdeVQGHqaaS3JAaz6im+BYRwgPnNQyre7o=; b=unCm16gB3OlWNbI2WKQ+kHCvK9UzjmINmC2F5JRXXLzQao3h+MgKebIt6mglnxU/gn BBw1l1hcIwx5o71zmtWYn54lEwI0htXCRLRW7uVzm/biQaDwh52rGfZhrMtoWUE2ZVsA VKu7CWUTxJLyPM0Hsm3z9hJCZniIcoU3HVS5YaRN3AbkcLYrApD8E0/Piagvw7Piq8bh FhXD0xpjiu9BmdDOirlVteIsv6Nz6LjpH6BgKPbONZPuQzewfF4A92FtiPS+1z9lRIll UjJsErVmJxBGxMUj24jA7+OUydtoyOJFyiyjVrSJ2XL2kl4akjzEjTcC2pzMvz+2Bzsp Uqdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZh92gfKgOtZOrB+1sKqM3rNDUo/T3qMBerS4Gp/GwpxPA4ZdGX XvRXzbJDybtwgdws6HDKMIBnBDFFyyFK8crmKAA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaLJCHfry8s/AM0y5QBKNVb0NdlzbD9dWJ95gT4bpBmubsUvnAQ8CFj3z9J56E6yEMiZDuP4i47Msn4rG++rKg= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c544:: with SMTP id v65mr13798233iof.118.1549688234055; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 20:57:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190208100221.GA22283@ash> In-Reply-To: From: Duy Nguyen Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 11:56:47 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: could not freshen shared index ..../sharedindex.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000' To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Luke Diamand , Git Users , Christian Couder Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 12:24 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Duy Nguyen writes: > > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:25:25AM +0000, Luke Diamand wrote: > >> I've recently started seeing a lot of this message when doing a rebase: > >> > >> warning: could not freshen shared index > >> '/home/ldiamand/git/dev_full/.git/worktrees/gcc8-take-2/sharedindex.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000' > > > > There are only two places in the code that could print this. The one > > in read_index_from() can't happen unless is_null_oid() is broken (very > > very unlikely). > > > > The other one is in write_locked_index() which could happen in theory > > but I don't understand how it got there. If you could build git, could > > you try this patch and see if it helps? > > ... meaning, if it hides the symptom, we'd know the codepath that > causes a NULL si->base_oid to appear here is the culprit? Or do you > mean that it is expected si->base_oid sometimes is NULL and we should > have been pretending as if si were NULL (i.e. split_index is not being > used)? I didn't go that far when I suggested my patch. Looking more at the code, I think we may have written the "link" extension with null oid. Which could trigger this case and is definitely wrong. > I take it as the latter (i.e. "helps" to narrow down the bug hunting > field, not "helps" by fixing the bug). Yeah definitely not the fix (how can I write "I don't know why" in the commit message for the fix). At least now I know I'm on the right track. Szeder recently fixed some racy bug in split-index.c, which seems fit in this rebase scenario since we'll be updating the index very often in a short period of time. Perhaps that uncovers some case that we don't handle well. I haven't been able to connect the dots though. -- Duy