[PATCH v2 3/8] sparse-index: silently return when cache tree fails

From: Derrick Stolee <redacted>

If cache_tree_update() returns a non-zero value, then it could not
create the cache tree. This is likely due to a path having a merge
conflict. Since we are already returning early, let's return silently to
avoid making it seem like we failed to write the index at all.

If we remove our dependence on the cache tree within
convert_to_sparse(), then we could still recover from this scenario and
have a sparse index.

When constructing the cache-tree extension in convert_to_sparse(), it is
possible that we construct a tree object that is new to the object
database. Without the WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK flag, this results in an
error that halts our conversion to a sparse index. Add this flag to
remove this limitation.

Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <redacted>
---
 sparse-index.c | 13 +++++++++----
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sparse-index.c b/sparse-index.c
index bc5900eae35..b6e90417556 100644
--- a/sparse-index.c
+++ b/sparse-index.c

@@ -179,10 +179,15 @@ int convert_to_sparse(struct index_state *istate)
 
 	/* Clear and recompute the cache-tree */
 	cache_tree_free(&istate->cache_tree);
-	if (cache_tree_update(istate, 0)) {
-		warning(_("unable to update cache-tree, staying full"));
-		return -1;
-	}
+	/*
+	 * Silently return if there is a problem with the cache tree update,
+	 * which might just be due to a conflict state in some entry.
+	 *
+	 * This might create new tree objects, so be sure to use
+	 * WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK.
+	 */
+	if (cache_tree_update(istate, WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK))
+		return 0;
 
 	remove_fsmonitor(istate);
 

-- 
gitgitgadget