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,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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 752851F454 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 01:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726765AbfKKBn5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:43:57 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:58297 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726756AbfKKBn4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:43:56 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E043D6BE; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:43:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ayHXzkzXUTDH2oivuFveSg7wkOE=; b=Q+RktM UrE45vj7mmsqZwDVS7vLvtbzy56wCj2eYhbngwXixTuFzd52UgLhIaN6Z19v3/B8 B97gN/fYSS1qxyF2ZWjOk9sAcH/+1vj8ar36Diq2zCZDYKK+GDI7U50Hq4G2rw8N 2dqVVYnItn6bVMnWJqT9UhPSeexTadVMH3Zio= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=pQZbSwuJAzkRYF+DG+JApiKfCskUYPo8 4p/fTjaQ0GRVZLkLWbVonsyysu5eprRZZ4+ichkqUIk3dgKtmLzM6j5/aU5KYZYy lXGHbyDRXJKuq8ng8w8Uxrwda1gzDagaqjyk60aF9o8mIh1YLWOwllDD5hPKmsFA qEZuPOuLNPg= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A253D6BD; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:43:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D46E3D6BC; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:43:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Utsav Shah via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Utsav Shah Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] fsmonitor: skip sanity check if the index is split References: Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:43:53 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Utsav Shah via GitGitGadget's message of "Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:09:19 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B81FE682-0424-11EA-95D6-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Utsav Shah via GitGitGadget" writes: > At the very least, this patch mitigates an over-eager check for split index > users while maintaining good invariants for the standard case. OK, it sounds more like this "it does not make any sense to compare the position in the fsmonitor bitmap (which covers the entire thing) with the position in just a split part of the index (which covers only the delta over the base index)"? If that is the case, it means that the "check" is even worse than being "over-eager"---it simply is not correct. Thanks, will queue.