On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:
> (Only nitpicks during this round of review).
>> +     if (get_device_or_die(path) != get_device_or_die(get_git_dir())) {
>> +             strbuf_reset(&sb);
>> +             strbuf_addf(&sb, "%s/locked", sb_repo.buf);
>> +             write_file(sb.buf, 1, "located on a different file system\n");
>> +             keep_locked = 1;
>> +     } else {
>> +             strbuf_reset(&sb);
>> +             strbuf_addf(&sb, "%s/link", sb_repo.buf);
>> +             link(sb_git.buf, sb.buf); /* it's ok to fail */
> If so, perhaps tell that to the code by saying something like
>                 (void) link(...);
> ?
> But why is it OK to fail in the first place?  If we couldn't link,
> don't you want to fall back to the lock codepath?  After all, the
> "are we on the same device?" check is to cope with the case where
> we cannot link and that alternate codepath is supposed to be
> prepared to handle the "ah, we cannot link" case correctly, no?

Filesystems not supporting hardlinks are one reason. The idea behind
"locked" is that the new checkout could be on a portable device and we
don't want to prune its metadata just because the device is not
plugged in. Checking same device help but even that can't guarantee no
false positives, unless your only mount point is /. So no I don't
really think we should go lock whenever link() fails, that would just
make fewer checkouts prunable.
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