kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jeff King	2548183bad	fix phantom untracked files when core.ignorecase is set When core.ignorecase is turned on and there are stale index entries, "git commit" can sometimes report directories as untracked, even though they contain tracked files. You can see an example of this with: # make a case-insensitive repo git init repo && cd repo && git config core.ignorecase true && # with some tracked files in a subdir mkdir subdir && > subdir/one && > subdir/two && git add . && git commit -m base && # now make the index entries stale touch subdir/* && # and then ask commit to update those entries and show # us the status template git commit -a which will report "subdir/" as untracked, even though it clearly contains two tracked files. What is happening in the commit program is this: 1. We load the index, and for each entry, insert it into the index's name_hash. In addition, if ignorecase is turned on, we make an entry in the name_hash for the directory (e.g., "contrib/"), which uses the following code from 5102c61's hash_index_entry_directories: hash = hash_name(ce->name, ptr - ce->name); if (!lookup_hash(hash, &istate->name_hash)) { pos = insert_hash(hash, &istate->name_hash); if (pos) { ce->next = pos; pos = ce; } } Note that we only add the directory entry if there is not already an entry. 2. We run add_files_to_cache, which gets updated information for each cache entry. It helpfully inserts this information into the cache, which calls replace_index_entry. This in turn calls remove_name_hash() on the old entry, and add_name_hash() on the new one. But remove_name_hash doesn't actually remove from the hash, it only marks it as "no longer interesting" (from cache.h): /* * We don't actually remove it, we can just mark it invalid so that * we won't find it in lookups. * * Not only would we have to search the lists (simple enough), but * we'd also have to rehash other hash buckets in case this makes the * hash bucket empty (common). So it's much better to just mark * it. / static inline void remove_name_hash(struct cache_entry ce) { ce->ce_flags \|= CE_UNHASHED; } This is OK in the specific-file case, since the entries in the hash form a linked list, and we can just skip the "not here anymore" entries during lookup. But for the directory hash entry, we will _not_ write a new entry, because there is already one there: the old one that is actually no longer interesting! 3. While traversing the directories, we end up in the directory_exists_in_index_icase function to see if a directory is interesting. This in turn checks index_name_exists, which will look up the directory in the index's name_hash. We see the old, deleted record, and assume there is nothing interesting. The directory gets marked as untracked, even though there are index entries in it. The problem is in the code I showed above: hash = hash_name(ce->name, ptr - ce->name); if (!lookup_hash(hash, &istate->name_hash)) { pos = insert_hash(hash, &istate->name_hash); if (pos) { ce->next = pos; pos = ce; } } Having a single cache entry that represents the directory is not enough; that entry may go away if the index is changed. It may be tempting to say that the problem is in our removal method; if we removed the entry entirely instead of simply marking it as "not here anymore", then we would know we need to insert a new entry. But that only covers this particular case of remove-replace. In the more general case, consider something like this: 1. We add "foo/bar" and "foo/baz" to the index. Each gets their own entry in name_hash, plus we make a "foo/" entry that points to "foo/bar". 2. We remove the "foo/bar" entry from the index, and from the name_hash. 3. We ask if "foo/" exists, and see no entry, even though "foo/baz" exists. So we need that directory entry to have the list of _all_ cache entries that indicate that the directory is tracked. So that implies making a linked list as we do for other entries, like: hash = hash_name(ce->name, ptr - ce->name); pos = insert_hash(hash, &istate->name_hash); if (pos) { ce->next = pos; pos = ce; } But that's not right either. In fact, it shows a second bug in the current code, which is that the "ce->next" pointer is supposed to be linking entries for a specific filename entry, but here we are overwriting it for the directory entry. So the same cache entry ends up in two linked lists, but they share the same "next" pointer. As it turns out, this second bug can't be triggered in the current code. The "if (pos)" conditional is totally dead code; pos will only be non-NULL if there was an existing hash entry, and we already checked that there wasn't one through our call to lookup_hash. But fixing the first bug means taking out that call to lookup_hash, which is going to activate the buggy dead code, and we'll end up splicing the two linked lists together. So we need to have a separate next pointer for the list in the directory bucket, and we need to traverse that list in index_name_exists when we are looking up a directory. This bloats "struct cache_entry" by a few bytes. Which is annoying, because it's only necessary when core.ignorecase is enabled. There's not an easy way around it, short of separating out the "next" pointers from cache_entry entirely (i.e., having a separate "cache_entry_list" struct that gets stored in the name_hash). In practice, it probably doesn't matter; we have thousands of cache entries, compared to the millions of objects (where adding 4 bytes to the struct actually does impact performance). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	13 years ago
Joshua Jensen	5102c6173c	Add case insensitivity support for directories when using git status When using a case preserving but case insensitive file system, directory case can differ but still refer to the same physical directory. git status reports the directory with the alternate case as an Untracked file. (That is, when mydir/filea.txt is added to the repository and then the directory on disk is renamed from mydir/ to MyDir/, git status shows MyDir/ as being untracked.) Support has been added in name-hash.c for hashing directories with a terminating slash into the name hash. When index_name_exists() is called with a directory (a name with a terminating slash), the name is not found via the normal cache_name_compare() call, but it is found in the slow_same_name() function. Additionally, in dir.c, directory_exists_in_index_icase() allows newly added directories deeper in the directory chain to be identified. Ultimately, it would be better if the file list was read in case insensitive alphabetical order from disk, but this change seems to suffice for now. The end result is the directory is looked up in a case insensitive manner and does not show in the Untracked files list. Signed-off-by: Joshua Jensen <jjensen@workspacewhiz.com> Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	14 years ago
Linus Torvalds	cd2fef59ed	Make hash_name_lookup able to do case-independent lookups Right now nobody uses it, but "index_name_exists()" gets a flag so you can enable it on a case-by-case basis. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Linus Torvalds	df292c791a	Make "index_name_exists()" return the cache_entry it found This allows verify_absent() in unpack_trees() to use the hash chains rather than looking it up using the binary search. Perhaps more importantly, it's also going to be useful for the next phase, where we actually start looking at the cache entry when we do case-insensitive lookups and checking the result. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Linus Torvalds	96872bc200	Move name hashing functions into a file of its own It's really totally separate functionality, and if we want to start doing case-insensitive hash lookups, I'd rather do it when it's separated out. It also renames "remove_index_entry()" to "remove_name_hash()", because that really describes the thing better. It doesn't actually remove the index entry, that's done by "remove_index_entry_at()", which is something very different, despite the similarity in names. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago