On 2/25/24 8:10 AM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:

quoted

+	if (!memcmp(name, canonical_path.buf, canonical_path.len)) {
+		strbuf_release(&canonical_path);
+		/*
+		 * NEEDSWORK: Our caller already tried an exact match
+		 * and failed to find one.  They called us to do an
+		 * ICASE match, so we should never get an exact match,
+		 * so we could promote this to a BUG() here if we
+		 * wanted to.  It doesn't hurt anything to just return
+		 * 0 and go on becaus we should never get here.  Or we
+		 * could just get rid of the memcmp() and this "if"
+		 * clause completely.
+		 */
+		return 0; /* should not happen */

In very very theory, there may be a race-condition,
when a directory is renamed very fast, more than once.
I don't think, that the "it did not match exactly, but
now it matches" is a problem.
Question: Does it make sense to just remove this ?
And, may be, find out that the "corrected spelling (tm)"
of "DIR1" is not "dir1", neither "Dir1", but, exactly, "DIR1" ?
Would that be a problem ?

I just meant that the dir-name-hash that we computed when
we loaded the index found an exact-case match here that
wasn't found when called index_name_pos() and the negative
"pos" didn't point to this exact-case prefix.  This should
not happen.

Yeah I didn't think it should be a fatal condition, but
since it shouldn't happen, we can make it a BUG() and see.

Jeff