-
由 Jeff King 提交于
When we want to write out a loose object file, we have always first made sure we don't already have the object somewhere. Since 33d4221c (write_sha1_file: freshen existing objects, 2014-10-15), we also update the timestamp on the file, so that a simultaneous prune knows somebody is likely to reference it soon. If our utime() call fails, we treat this the same as not having the object in the first place; the safe thing to do is write out another copy. However, the loose-object check accidentally inverts the utime() check; it returns failure _only_ when the utime() call actually succeeded. Thus it was failing to protect us there, and in the normal case where utime() succeeds, it caused us to pointlessly write out and link the object. This passed our freshening tests, because writing out the new object is certainly _one_ way of updating its utime. So the normal case was inefficient, but not wrong. While we're here, let's also drop a comment in front of the check_and_freshen functions, making a note of their return type (since it is not our usual "0 for success, -1 for error"). Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
3096b2ec