From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D35C2798F5 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 06:15:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745907356; cv=none; b=sVToLmJYd9WGGeGPRmukrq8kZBGdjahqGG++398i69lxhTnQIzrX0KMkRIcw8IgpWgCJcv1MranydahVmSy52bcYjsa8Bl5mKGBh/Djv/98fEeULi6D70Nb9+8tJzDkQlggQ6WsN8EKub9Zb3jlPeqBcJaUowUc4lwcfXoGntGI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745907356; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9Ncq5vJTYnF6rZ+3h5j3MPO+gqtwP4/ZWpvax+w+Uno=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IBoqVVHccLDNbtUH1g9VXUjHTV7BQU5D/qwB0fWKnm/EaUroVsd1g0i45CyzQ2TkfoRcN8UhYI90roCgjnhP251Z85+T5kP1Kt5udBJf/jQxUrCivd7Xh99NGlSyJVOfk+KUH9Nwi2iHLL8gR7oBmVQRUA6b+KI+Qgen1uHaMf8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=cRoUouBY; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=sk2LKVY8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="cRoUouBY"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="sk2LKVY8" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.phl.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6436513801CB; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:15:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:15:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1745907353; x=1745993753; bh=6F0Xbxv1Ve 8G+Is4RtQYhdyr+6/OaO5Z6xGgFd+a/LU=; b=cRoUouBYawK/aPaa0hCXv7sA7X eXGHeN1TZRUK29od5gb0vgMU1knud+yuqlxqbwz/tmk2bK6IFZH21q4XNTOPLXqM 9NvtYE4NZ+1YgSMDDF9ly98aC/szA54RpNcQWbf8t2sLssRH82ca+IUOEgmjmpTH j2kc5OiW7Kc/4GG6uXKZPMoDkQqS+4ct2pvFh8bNKM87OZprpFehcrNJLSknuaxW 90BNDn/vC3Ucdvc1wqAqK2HudW+BO03uJk9xdOddelRVblAUL9RDld1L0vm48aFF Mpj37cfj94pVC807UoBrDP68lt0+XV1ywjKkhTaCM6KquF0FHV89+P/PA+YQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1745907353; x=1745993753; bh=6F0Xbxv1Ve8G+Is4RtQYhdyr+6/OaO5Z6xG gFd+a/LU=; b=sk2LKVY8Yych84F0qNxJ9i69ED1FNULwnPEFb/HiNo8EsULi6zu IunTioVQ3mnSJWU2uSW110zZ71iAKLnrvZ631ulyGJTS7t2ARC3UxCn/oRtHEZlB HhrJ5mKXNCx50oJy3JBvLUOyG+rRI6U/3qVZPC3swZoVL12p84K3DemKgPt0gusy k69R1LVg3N6aM7cVLqexc/0J96kixMGGHIz7Tb9mDVFhHtUkA2Xn4M69eCOA+AEO Z23G6n4Y2niR27vuQyIeU9d72ZetjImPiaEMMW7CDXHZXpB1zGqZYI78GaLj55mv CUz8iPAEPknDWzH8jaKCCdDdlD6e892Y0xw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddvieeftdekucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtrodttddt vdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgtkhcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhsrd himheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjedttdegffekudejjeegudehgfehtdfgtdeiudel ueelgfeuteehledugeeuueevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpe hmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepfedpmhhouggv pehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgh dprhgtphhtthhopehkrghrthhhihhkrddukeeksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthht ohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 98a4c70f (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Tue, 29 Apr 2025 06:15:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 08:15:46 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] bulk-checkin: don't fetch promised objects on write Message-ID: References: <20250425-pks-object-store-cleanups-v2-0-63f1695b7700@pks.im> <20250425-pks-object-store-cleanups-v2-12-63f1695b7700@pks.im> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 03:07:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt writes: > > > In an ideal world, we would protect against this by fetching the > > promised object and then performing a collision check. But this feels > > exceedingly expensive and ultimately rather pointless, as more common > > writing paths like `write_loose_object()` don't protect against this > > scenario either. > > When writing loose object, wouldn't collision check kick in, and > didn't we compare "existing (not here but virtually here due to > promisor)" object and what write_loose_object() tried to create, at > least before this series which may (or may not; I lost track) have > disabled that check? > > I think the overall goal of deprecating the function with long name > with another function with a short-and-sweet name with different > default is a worthy thing, and while I do agree with "as we are > replacing function with another with different default, we need to > pass different flags to keep the same behaviour" early parts of the > series, I am not sure about these latter steps. Yeah, to be honest I wasn't totally sure whether to include these steps myself as I anticipated that they will lead to discussions that derail my original goal, which is to clean up the interfaces in the object subsystem. I decided to go with these where I thought that my train of thought is reasonable, but given your comments I'll probably just drop those patches. We can still adapt these callsites in the future as needed. Patrick