From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.156]) (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 BD8502765D7 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 22:42:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.156 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756852943; cv=none; b=u+KIC5dchYVLV1IgmFbdvD/q8VzY0+kDTVqzYKJkM+TGV921M5ASxD0nO8bpMjnhwDqTrH1Pp7FZ5st2X8W5oTFNaLay41yLT5upUR/p65zpfg1puth2NnzUihAH1uDPteVvlXUqzkplcIOnkDrKvpSIJO8KksNX91+gIhsvd6w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756852943; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hUPvzJ7FUS7+uOz/O+21GOlrwh9A+qGSCxjGErBapbU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KwCYR9uoVSsQLaum96Kmsu3bx0A7WISdnRDbHwZNYMHw8unmxFzmIs6BTz0qOeWbdlwScMFCIJtfRUg4cErRsuFqof3mMIxcLIVgIuzsAGcpufholWjdrtgc1Y0g0d3TU9IjE+NS0ouGBiQKyxJy7g5f2rA7ndWjBEK1z2FWjpg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=fuNIwVOG; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=lGxzaxgX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.156 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="fuNIwVOG"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="lGxzaxgX" Received: from phl-compute-10.internal (phl-compute-10.internal [10.202.2.50]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32F614000EC; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 18:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-10.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Sep 2025 18:42:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; 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=1756852940; x=1756939340; bh=PQejCxg1dD 6oteXVqHgpGzh0ZKLnvf5/BJyaII1Ij4g=; b=fuNIwVOGMAv/Y2jjNXDayn1taS BOZMT8RZC2q5iNGsZjtPRO77ahbZH5G0HMwiMuNLhX3tZw6PTyxpzBao1nun7KGj mpRRXkT7kdXSZVhjE30Gn+Bo9CratioHL5UHakpWJOhFjMY6+OlaR9NDEBQejE73 i3G3EoBOOr4fQ0hlDnS25O4ug0+oHwNqx4DDYXxmDjM8iK3rzPTAnenfrmKD6eSG 8L9JuOmwo8PrJC3iopn/+wF9NRJDT2FdNI8k4shmabQ8Iw2T/mcRWk3M/uEcWFUv kaXLBYVRc07wz9Nd/EocQN0TOZxklyZp7PxnokvffcujRAP1KPft5mmD9fsg== 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=fm1; t= 1756852940; x=1756939340; bh=PQejCxg1dD6oteXVqHgpGzh0ZKLnvf5/BJy aII1Ij4g=; b=lGxzaxgX5w5riVriKh56FGWbnZKiwXxn+Bi8a2856DUVEv/SvMu 0WhzQVv1/QyOIgPO43ycjhYU8uZO4LUJ4eGSL+/b1ut1a1tEIL4NG2wtJegHdqVa fkHXPfGB4DuSetdqQi++9mvborHiM7oSDQ6DuSa32/lwgikRKeicUjK9Bh6ucwdA MkEqjdvZCTtxMAJ+lZPRQOMHnTSLaajVmu44w5bngX4jcPIiEw+S0FG71c+mttVh YfsmdESzwdVOrjfEP2NO2WBKK3uZUxNnHTHnySgqHpXLAURc9QXWVTRuugg3loLn YlheaFWR/bF78Jl0RS9fvcf+ypLO0fhs/gQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddugeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghi lhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurh ephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecu jfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg hrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeei necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhith hsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohephedpmhhouggvpehsmhht phhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepkhgrrhhthhhikhdrudekkeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprh gtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhl thhosghlvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshhhvghjihgrlhhuohesgh hmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 18:42:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Karthik Nayak Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jltobler@gmail.com, shejialuo@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] refs/reftable: add fsck check for incorrect update index In-Reply-To: <20250902-228-reftable-introduce-consistency-checks-v2-5-4f96b3834779@gmail.com> (Karthik Nayak's message of "Tue, 02 Sep 2025 09:05:25 +0200") References: <20250902-228-reftable-introduce-consistency-checks-v2-0-4f96b3834779@gmail.com> <20250902-228-reftable-introduce-consistency-checks-v2-5-4f96b3834779@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 15:42:19 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Karthik Nayak writes: > Introduce a fsck check for the reftable backend, which checks if the > tables in 'tables.list' contain sequential update index. The tables in > the reftable backend should contain sequential update index. This fsck > check ensures that. > > We must note that the reftable backend itself doesn't check to ensure > this and it also doesn't check to ensure that the index in the table > name matches the index in the header or the table. The latter is not > implemented in this fsck check either and will be added in a future > patch where we add fsck checks for internals of a table. Similar to the previous step, I am not sure why this should not be checked at runtime and is flagged as an error. In general, we do try to avoid retroactively tightening rules, but the reftable is so new and not even the default. If we noticed that the runtime has been overly loose, the time to tighten it is now, not after even more installations use it.