On Friday, June 05, 2015 @ 1:18 PM Jeff King [mailto:p...@peff.net] did scribble:
> Sorry, I haven't had a chance to look at it further. It still on my todo > list. My plan is: > > 1. Devise some torture to tests to see whether my patch series is in > fact racy on Linux. > > 2. Assuming it is, scrap it and make a has_sha1_file_quick() which > might sometimes return a false negative (if somebody else is > repacking). Use that in index-pack (and possibly other places, but > we can start with index-pack). > > If we skip step 1 out of pessimism (which I think is a reasonable thing > to do), then step 2 should not be all that much work. I'm going to be > offline for a few days, though, so I won't get to it until next week at > the earliest. If you (or someone else) wants to take a stab at it, > please feel free. I've been off myself and wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything in the email threads while I was away as there we rather a lot of them. Not feeling confident enough to make the changes myself at the moment. I think what you are saying is that has_sha1_file_quick() would be the version from before your change in 45e8a74. And then use that, but I could be barking up the wrong tree completely. Thanks, Steve
