Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix UX issue with commit-graph.lock
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:00:32 +0900
- From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix UX issue with commit-graph.lock
Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> We use the lockfile API to avoid multiple Git processes from writing to
> the commit-graph file in the .git/objects/info directory. In some cases,
> this directory may not exist, so we check for its existence.
> The existing code does the following when acquiring the lock:
> 1. Try to acquire the lock.
> 2. If it fails, try to create the .git/object/info directory.
> 3. Try to acquire the lock, failing if necessary.
> The problem is that if the lockfile exists, then the mkdir fails, giving
> an error that doesn't help the user:
> "fatal: cannot mkdir .git/objects/info: File exists"
Isn't a better immediate fix to make the second step pay attention
to errno? If mkdir() failed due to EEXIST, then we know we tried to
aquire the lock already, so we can die with an appropriate message.
That way, we can keep the "optimize for the normal case" that the
approach to assume object/info/ directory is already there, instead
of always checking its existence which is almost always true
Also, can't we tell why we failed to acquire the lock at step #1?
Do we only get a NULL that says "I am not telling you why, but we
failed to lock"? What I am getting at is that the ideal sequence
would be more like:
1. Try to acquire the lock.
2-a. if #1 succeeds, we are happy. ignore the rest and return
2-b. if #1 failed because object/info/ did not exist,
mkdir() it, and die if we cannot, saying "cannot mkdir".
if mkdir() succeeds, jump t 3.
2-c. if #1 failed but that is not due to missing object/info/,
die saying "cannot lock".
3. Try to acquire the lock.
4-a. if #3 succeeds, we are happy.ignore the rest and return
4-b. die saying "cannot lock".