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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 3CEC41F404 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 20:53:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932104AbeBGUxo (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:53:44 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f196.google.com ([209.85.128.196]:34760 "EHLO mail-wr0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932099AbeBGUxn (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:53:43 -0500 Received: by mail-wr0-f196.google.com with SMTP id z6so2537009wrb.1 for ; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:53:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=NWKWG7AD0ZRVw/39e8wRR950zKVBM1y55ikZD7kNhXo=; b=jHiGdfPc+96L8gP3Ji0x5/cu6CUMFKHWLs5PvGD3hNki8u+PHsIjw8e36XaLVJans0 1AvT7nrfKZ6vSdR0GRcba5og4k7hnmGExbrPVXt328Rjt7qFLMUB9fiFv/MKArFGQu+Z tAyWYPZSjcTqugvjM/ZeDko7BHKahFEx+ymICewLxyW+nu/+8B2UR+ppWF6BVDESJ2gY i3Xfj5ZyqJepDVjw/4UNJJvpUmwiv+DkqgMnfvg34vXfF4MsrSKdoevwyuJVAM9X9nJB EY1TNjQ3AlYd2DqCQgcc9ZGB+lbgeoSwa/MftNQNkxNQ0MwfRBYZkxyFpDRli/swqKna JrgA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=NWKWG7AD0ZRVw/39e8wRR950zKVBM1y55ikZD7kNhXo=; b=PVvzRXu5CbZ7qcLh/uSR6nxzbgczaoOTKKGN6PT34ZlwjKfbdIpJ69+0rJwhY7168W DG3YMlPKWO3R9dFHaRSZz8Duins5uBC5j2jvyfrwU+pur/G1pqE3kkDfPPJ9bnHgJ2v+ S0zCKpqTYNCgOPJvyH3T63y+zutbysGoAFportNTpmqjru2bJuHDSeHbj3ULk1H9DB6N hBOYnGO7mxwX9qZeKqX+ME0y/cLZ4FEHQ5MnFsM0mgfLmVeYlWkzX+oMsW5y1shF1Cu0 nG5C7C598VL2EQ6vpqfOYIn5hKa4BKsuHQeYkVjtFdxdrmN14DiIr1FETz/G08yTZJlp 8rww== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBr/cuYRY2klQZEGbr6OZX2khhgusyVha6SJxSGX5SXZOnt2vOJ l+UtTcbnd05y/mmdFmkgC5TroyxD X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226kEsG2WfnBah/qgKo7nPPT61CJPAOm8C/mNPa3dIPeMm3wTmTQj1Jrf1larJVN+fgxp7N06w== X-Received: by 10.223.160.176 with SMTP id m45mr6711081wrm.119.1518036821520; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:53:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (168.50.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.50.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l2sm2330384wre.6.2018.02.07.12.53.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:53:40 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, mhagger@alum.mit.edu, Mathias Rav Subject: Re: [PATCH] files-backend: unlock packed store only if locked References: <20180206203615.68504-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> <20180207144251.GB27420@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180207103245.d500efb67cc73cf31087f4be@google.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:53:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20180207103245.d500efb67cc73cf31087f4be@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:32:45 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:42:51 -0500 > Jeff King wrote: > >> But this all seemed strangely familiar... I think this is the same bug >> as: >> >> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180118143841.1a4c674d@novascotia/ >> >> which is queued as mr/packed-ref-store-fix. It's listed as "will merge >> to next" in the "what's cooking" from Jan 31st. > > Ah...thanks, I didn't notice that. > >> I actually like this double-label a bit more than what is queued on >> mr/packed-ref-store-fix, though I am OK with either solution. > > Same here. I do agree that the double-label approach is more future-proof way, especially if we anticipate that there will be more code after the "attempt initial ref transaction commit" block before the packed-ref-store is unlocked. On the other hand, introduction of the locked_cleanup label can be done as part of such a change that adds new code that needs to be skipped, so I am OK with what is queued there. Thanks, all.