Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] environment: move 'trust_executable_bit' into repo_config_values
From: Tian Yuchen <hidden>
Date: 2026-06-01 10:10:23
Hi Junio, Thanks for the feedback! On 5/31/26 07:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Tian Yuchen [off-list ref] writes:quoted
diff --git a/apply.c b/apply.c index 249248d4f2..73ca9907f8 100644 --- a/apply.c +++ b/apply.c@@ -3890,10 +3890,12 @@ static int check_preimage(struct apply_state *state, } if (!state->cached && !previous) { + struct repo_config_values *cfg = repo_config_values(the_repository); + if (*ce && !(*ce)->ce_mode) BUG("ce_mode == 0 for path '%s'", old_name); - if (trust_executable_bit || !S_ISREG(st->st_mode)) + if (cfg->trust_executable_bit || !S_ISREG(st->st_mode)) st_mode = ce_mode_from_stat(*ce, st->st_mode); else if (*ce) st_mode = (*ce)->ce_mode;diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c index 54150fe756..18af533649 100644 --- a/read-cache.c +++ b/read-cache.c@@ -204,10 +204,12 @@ void fill_stat_cache_info(struct index_state *istate, struct cache_entry *ce, st unsigned int ce_mode_from_stat(const struct cache_entry *ce, unsigned int mode) { + struct repo_config_values *cfg = repo_config_values(the_repository); + if (!has_symlinks && S_ISREG(mode) && ce && S_ISLNK(ce->ce_mode)) return ce->ce_mode; - if (!trust_executable_bit && S_ISREG(mode)) { + if (!cfg->trust_executable_bit && S_ISREG(mode)) { if (ce && S_ISREG(ce->ce_mode)) return ce->ce_mode; return create_ce_mode(0666);How hot are the code paths that call into this helper function? In the original under some condition, it was possible to return without even consulting the trust_executable_bit variable, but in the updated code, the helper unconditionally makes a call to the repo_config_values() helper function even before it knows it needs to know the value of trust_executable_bit.
That sounds reasonable to me. I’ll adjust the conditional logic in some of the statements so that they short-circuit appropriately to avoid performance overhead.
quoted
@@ -217,11 +219,13 @@ unsigned int ce_mode_from_stat(const struct cache_entry *ce, unsigned int mode) static unsigned int st_mode_from_ce(const struct cache_entry *ce) { + struct repo_config_values *cfg = repo_config_values(the_repository); + switch (ce->ce_mode & S_IFMT) { case S_IFLNK: return has_symlinks ? S_IFLNK : (S_IFREG | 0644); case S_IFREG: - return (ce->ce_mode & (trust_executable_bit ? 0755 : 0644)) | S_IFREG; + return (ce->ce_mode & (cfg->trust_executable_bit ? 0755 : 0644)) | S_IFREG; case S_IFGITLINK: return S_IFDIR | 0755; case S_IFDIR:Ditto.quoted
@@ -321,6 +325,7 @@ static int ce_modified_check_fs(struct index_state *istate, static int ce_match_stat_basic(const struct cache_entry *ce, struct stat *st) { unsigned int changed = 0; + struct repo_config_values *cfg = repo_config_values(the_repository); if (ce->ce_flags & CE_REMOVE) return MODE_CHANGED | DATA_CHANGED | TYPE_CHANGED;@@ -331,7 +336,7 @@ static int ce_match_stat_basic(const struct cache_entry *ce, struct stat *st) /* We consider only the owner x bit to be relevant for * "mode changes" */ - if (trust_executable_bit && + if (cfg->trust_executable_bit && (0100 & (ce->ce_mode ^ st->st_mode))) changed |= MODE_CHANGED; break;Ditto.quoted
@@ -732,6 +737,8 @@ int add_to_index(struct index_state *istate, const char *path, struct stat *st, (intent_only ? ADD_CACHE_NEW_ONLY : 0)); unsigned hash_flags = pretend ? 0 : INDEX_WRITE_OBJECT; + struct repo_config_values *cfg = repo_config_values(the_repository); +Lose the excess blank line before the new declaration.quoted
if (flags & ADD_CACHE_RENORMALIZE) hash_flags |= INDEX_RENORMALIZE;@@ -752,7 +759,7 @@ int add_to_index(struct index_state *istate, const char *path, struct stat *st, ce->ce_flags |= CE_INTENT_TO_ADD; - if (trust_executable_bit && has_symlinks) { + if (cfg->trust_executable_bit && has_symlinks) { ce->ce_mode = create_ce_mode(st_mode); } else { /* If there is an existing entry, pick the mode bits and typeAlmost all of these places that care about trust_executable_bit also cares about has_symlinks. I wonder if they should be converted to repo-local settings in the same series.
That’s true: I had actually planned to start migrating has_symlinks as soon as this series was approved. Since you think it would be better to merge them into a single series, I’ll go ahead and do that ;) Thanks, yuchen