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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B861F8C6 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 02:33:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232648AbhGQCgE (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jul 2021 22:36:04 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:52648 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232322AbhGQCgE (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jul 2021 22:36:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 22680 invoked by uid 109); 17 Jul 2021 02:33:09 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 02:33:08 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 16539 invoked by uid 111); 17 Jul 2021 02:33:09 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 22:33:09 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 22:33:07 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Han-Wen Nienhuys , Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: [PATCH] refs file backend: remove dead "errno == EISDIR" code Message-ID: References: <871r801yp6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <875yxczbd6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 06:28:06PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I then just never got to picking it up again, I'll probably re-roll it & > >> make it a part of this series, then we can remove this whole OID != NULL > >> case and will be sure nothing fishy's going on. > > > > Yeah, that sounds like a good path forward. I do think the patch under > > discussion here is probably the right thing to do. But it becomes all > > the more obvious if lock_ref_oid_basic() ends up dropping that parameter > > entirely. > > OK, so what's the final verdict on this step? It is unfortunate > that when Ævar took over a topic from Han-Wen, this patch has been > inserted as the very first step before the patches in the series, so > until we know we are happy with it, it takes several other patches > hostage. I just read through v2. Modulo a few small nits (mostly typos, but a few commit message suggestions), it looks good to me. I agree it's a lot to stick in front of another set of patches, but I think in this case we can proceed quickly enough to make it worth doing in the order Ævar suggests. -Peff