From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] merge-recursive: fix the refresh logic in update_file_flags
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:40:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq4kvmfmjy.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ba297fd67bb98bd06408241030cf42f410d5d366.1582131847.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> (Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget's message of "Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:04:07 +0000")
"Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
>
> If we need to delete a higher stage entry in the index to place the file
> at stage 0, then we'll lose that file's stat information. In such
> situations we may still be able to detect that the file on disk is the
> version we want (as noted by our comment in the code:
> /* do not overwrite file if already present */
> ), but we do still need to update the mtime since we are creating a new
> cache_entry for that file. Update the logic used to determine whether
> we refresh a file's mtime.
>
> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
> ---
> merge-recursive.c | 7 +++++--
> t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
> index aee1769a7ac..e6f943c5ccc 100644
> --- a/merge-recursive.c
> +++ b/merge-recursive.c
> @@ -998,10 +998,13 @@ static int update_file_flags(struct merge_options *opt,
> free(buf);
> }
> update_index:
> - if (!ret && update_cache)
> - if (add_cacheinfo(opt, contents, path, 0, update_wd,
> + if (!ret && update_cache) {
> + int refresh = (!opt->priv->call_depth &&
> + contents->mode != S_IFGITLINK);
> + if (add_cacheinfo(opt, contents, path, 0, refresh,
> ADD_CACHE_OK_TO_ADD))
> return -1;
Hmph, !.call_depth would avoid resetting update_wd to 0, so the only
difference this patch makes is when the caller of this helper passed
(update_wd == 0) during the outermost merge. We did not tell
add_cacheinfo() to refresh, and refresh_cache_entry() was not
called. But the new code forces refresh to happen for normal
entries. The proposed log message explains that a refresh is needed
for a new cache entry, but if I am reading the code correctly, this
function is called with !update_wd from two places, one of which is
the "Adding %s" /* do not overwrite ... */ the log message mentions.
But the other one? When both sides added identically, we do have an
up-to-date result on our side already, so shouldn't we avoid forcing
update_wd in that case?
I do not think passing refresh==1 in that case will produce an
incorrect result, but doesn't it force an unnecessary refreshing?
Puzzled.
> + }
> return ret;
> }
>
> diff --git a/t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh b/t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh
> index f11fc35c3ee..05df964670f 100755
> --- a/t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh
> +++ b/t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ test_expect_success 'rebase changes with the apply backend' '
> git rebase side1
> '
>
> -test_expect_failure 'rebase changes with the merge backend' '
> +test_expect_success 'rebase changes with the merge backend' '
> test_when_finished "git rebase --abort || true" &&
> git checkout -b merge-backend side2 &&
> git rebase -m side1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-19 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-17 17:15 [PATCH] t3424: new rebase testcase documenting a stat-dirty-like failure Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2020-02-17 19:12 ` Elijah Newren
2020-02-18 15:05 ` Phillip Wood
2020-02-18 15:59 ` Elijah Newren
2020-02-19 11:01 ` Phillip Wood
2020-02-19 16:00 ` Elijah Newren
2020-02-19 16:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-19 19:33 ` Phillip Wood
2020-02-18 14:03 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-02-18 15:55 ` Elijah Newren
2020-02-18 20:55 ` [PATCH v2] " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2020-02-18 21:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-18 22:01 ` Elijah Newren
2020-02-18 22:15 ` [PATCH v3] t3433: " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2020-02-19 17:04 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2020-02-19 17:04 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2020-02-19 17:04 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] merge-recursive: fix the refresh logic in update_file_flags Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2020-02-19 18:40 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2020-02-19 19:32 ` Elijah Newren
2020-02-19 21:39 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqq4kvmfmjy.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).