Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com> writes: >> OK. We notice that we need to newly create foo/bar but we >> incorrectly find that there is "foo/bar" already because of the >> careless use of bare lstat(2) makes "bar" visible as if it were also >> "foo/bar". I wonder if the current code would be confused the same >> way if the side branch added "foo/bar/file", or the confusion would >> be even worse---it is not dir_in_way() and a different codepath >> would be affected, no? > > I don't think there is a different codepath to be affected - as far as I > can tell, dir_in_way() is the only cause (at least of this particular > error).
OK, so existing code already realizes that "foo/bar/file" added in the side branch is the one that must survive, and the "bar/file" in the current branch does not fool it into thinking that "foo/bar/file" is also on our end, and needs to be merged as an add-add conflict. It was only the dir-in-the-way logic that was not careful enough? In that case, thanks for a very good news and for a careful analysis.
