Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 24 Jun 2017, at 16:19, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking of which, _are_ we OK with out-of-order processing in things
>> like checkout? Certainly we care about deleting items before checking
>> out new ones (so getting rid of "foo/bar" to make room for "foo" and
>> vice versa). I guess it's OK as long as the delayed items are always
>> filters that check out new items.
>
> Junio noticed that too but thinks we should be OK:
> "[...] We checkout removals first to make room so
> that creation of a path X can succeed if an existing path X/Y
> that used to want to see X as a directory can succeed [...]"
>
> http://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqvavotych....@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/
In which I said
... I
think "remove all and then create" you do not specifically have
to worry about with the proposed change, but you may need to
inspect and verify there aren't other kind of order dependency.
Yes, I think having two separate loops in the caller can help
guaranteeing this, as long as the delayed items are always filters
that check out new things. It will break once you have delayed
removals but I do not see how such a thing would be necessary ;-)
But there may be other kinds of order dependency--I didn't look for
them.
>>> @@ -647,6 +653,14 @@ static int apply_multi_file_filter(const char *path,
>>> const char *src, size_t len
>>> if (err)
>>> goto done;
>>>
>>> + if (CAP_DELAY & entry->supported_capabilities &&
>>> + dco && dco->state == CE_CAN_DELAY) {
>>
>> In a complicated conditional with bit operations, we usually put the bit
>> operation in its own parentheses so it's more obvious that it wasn't
>> supposed to be "&&". Like:
>>
>> if ((CAP_DELAY & entry->supported_capabilities) &&
>> dco && dco->state == CE_CAN_DELAY))
>
> Agreed!
Why wasn't this caught earlier? I thought this is something gcc warns about.
>> The operator precedence is such that it works without them, so this is
>> just a style question (I'd also usually put the flags field before the
>> flag itself, but that's really getting into aesthetics).
>
> You mean (entry & CAP_DELAY) instead of (CAP_DELAY & entry)?
Peff is continuing his explanation why (A & B && C) is technically
correct and preferring ((A & B) && C) is purely stylistic. "A & B"
binds tighter than "something && C" which means that (A & B && C)
cannot be misinterpreted as (A & (B && C)).
