Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> But currently only the main packed ref cache can be locked, so it would
> be possible for lock_packed_refs() to use the static packlock instance
> for locking.

Perhaps I am missing something from the previous discussions, but I
am having trouble understanding the "main packed ref cache" part of
the above.  "main" as opposed to...?  Is it envisioned that later
somebody can lock one subpart while another can lock a different and
non-overlapping subpart, to make changes independently, and somehow
their non-overlapping changes will be consolidated into a single
consistent result?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to