From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C1820A17 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:53:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750945AbdAWSxn (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:53:43 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:50009 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750705AbdAWSxm (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:53:42 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3660C625B9; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:53:41 -0500 (EST) 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=9nPupYxSerX5QMSXNBQynmoPvMA=; b=FeQpbv N6NjA5laTp/UE9oKil0ONigPJsgr0HSnEOszo2nhJCMSnKV4BEGG9dxavY4Qc/RQ JZYoBYK191fZxMAmoAdSlaqnyrm55wjqQErz5Uf6KoSWX1n/Li3Rut2JArAvG8+m U0GknqthpdN/mTqXTs1mft+Rbs0AbiNjcz5hw= 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=aXE+FVtCUHL2zJRSW7zaIxfUd+fNqNuF 4WLY/NdzSWbDEw/NYr2XYvV0a8vcj1MWFkjmcsafLJPWmqd5wqcy8mW1wWHcyuAQ waAqJoC0RBdV4m7qA+BMBZPjvOH6dnFldTuwGzcPraIj7mg7qGdAGwrPDY0pbvbm gXtjOcnm8Qw= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF29625B7; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:53:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A124625A9; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:53:40 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: Duy Nguyen , git , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 14/21] read-cache: touch shared index files when used References: <20161226102222.17150-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20161226102222.17150-15-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:53:39 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:14:11 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 415932DA-E19D-11E6-B678-A7617B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Christian Couder writes: > Also in general the split-index mode is useful when you often write > new indexes, and in this case shared index files that are used will > often be freshened, so the risk of deleting interesting shared index > files should be low. > ... >> Not that I think freshening would actually fail in a repository >> where you can actually write into to update the index or its refs to >> make a difference (iow, even if we make it die() loudly when shared >> index cannot be "touched" because we are paranoid, no real life >> usage will trigger that die(), and if a repository does trigger the >> die(), I think you would really want to know about it). > > As I wrote above, I think if we can actually write the shared index > file but its freshening fails, it probably means that the shared index > file has been removed behind us, and this case is equivalent as when > loose files have been removed behind us. OK, so it is unlikely to happen, and when it happens it leads to a catastrophic failure---do we just ignore or do we report an error?