On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> -static int commit_ref(struct ref_lock *lock)
>>>> +static int commit_ref(struct ref_lock *lock, const unsigned char *sha1)
>>>> {
>>>> + if (!lock->force_write && !hashcmp(lock->old_sha1, sha1))
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> if (commit_lock_file(lock->lk))
>>>> return -1;
>>>> return 0;
>>>> @@ -2879,10 +2882,13 @@ int rename_ref(const char *oldrefname, const char
>>>> *newrefname, const char *logms
>>>> }
>>>> lock->force_write = 1;
>>>> hashcpy(lock->old_sha1, orig_sha1);
>>>> - if (write_ref_sha1(lock, orig_sha1, logmsg)) {
>>>> + if (write_ref_sha1(lock, orig_sha1, logmsg)
>>>> + || commit_ref(lock, orig_sha1)) {
>>>> + unlock_ref(lock);
>>>
>>> This is not a new problem, but the two lines in pre-context of this
>>> patch look strange.
>>
>> Which (not new) problem are you talking about here? Do you have
>> a reference?
>
> These two lines in pre-context of the hunk:
>
>>>> lock->force_write = 1;
>>>> hashcpy(lock->old_sha1, orig_sha1);
>
So these 2 lines (specially the force_write=1 line) is just there to trigger
the valid early exit path as you sent in the other mail :
> if (!lock->force_write && !hashcmp(lock->old_sha1, sha1))
> return 0;
when we have the same sha1?
and you're saying that's a problem because hard to understand?
I am confused as well by now.
--
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
