On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 10:34:37AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> git-diff-index does not refresh the index for you, so using it for a
> "-dirty" check can give misleading results. Commit 6147b1cf19651
> ("scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check more robust") tried to
> fix this by switching to git-status, but it overlooked the fact that
> git-status also writes to the .git directory of the source tree, which
> is definitely not kosher for an out-of-tree (O=) build. That is getting
> reverted.
>
> Fortunately, git-status now supports avoiding writing to the index via
> the --no-optional-locks flag, as of git 2.14. It still calculates an
> up-to-date index, but it avoids writing it out to the .git directory.
>
> So, let's retry the solution from commit 6147b1cf19651 using this new
> flag first, and if it fails, we assume this is an older version of git
> and just use the old git-diff-index method.
>
> Cc: Genki Sky <s...@genki.is>
> Cc: Christian Kujau <li...@nerdbynature.de>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannor...@chromium.org>
Working for me with git v2.7.4.
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net>
> ---
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 11:55:26AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:18 PM Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:07 PM Genki Sky <s...@genki.is> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:55:14 -0800, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Ubuntu 16.04 ships with git version 2.7.4.
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay. I guess --no-optional-locks is a no-go then.
> > > >
> > > > In theory you could wrap it. If passing git with
> > > > "--no-optional-locks" doesn't work you could fall back to the old
> > > > code? That would mean only people with newer git would get your new
> > > > feature and everyone else would stick with the pre-existing behavior.
> > >
> > > +1, that's what I was going to suggest. Presumably older git would
> > > give non-zero exit status for unknown flags, and we take that as
> > > signal to try to the old way?
> >
> > I also like this idea!
> >
> > I will pick-up this revert patch soon.
> >
> >
> > Brian,
> > Could you please send a patch on top of that?
>
> Done.
>
> It's not supremely beautiful, but I believe it works. I tested with new
> git, and with a faked git wrapper that rejects --no-optional-locks,
> dumps an error to stderr, and returns a non-zero exit code. I don't
> happen to have an older copy of git lying around at the moment...
>
> scripts/setlocalversion | 15 +++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/setlocalversion b/scripts/setlocalversion
> index 71f39410691b..eab1f90de50d 100755
> --- a/scripts/setlocalversion
> +++ b/scripts/setlocalversion
> @@ -73,8 +73,19 @@ scm_version()
> printf -- '-svn%s' "`git svn find-rev $head`"
> fi
>
> - # Check for uncommitted changes
> - if git diff-index --name-only HEAD | grep -qv
> "^scripts/package"; then
> + # Check for uncommitted changes.
> + # First, with git-status, but --no-optional-locks is only
> + # supported in git >= 2.14, so fall back to git-diff-index if
> + # it fails. Note that git-diff-index does not refresh the
> + # index, so it may give misleading results. See
> + # git-update-index(1), git-diff-index(1), and git-status(1).
> + local git_status
> + git_status="$(git --no-optional-locks status -uno --porcelain
> 2>/dev/null)"
> + if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
> + if echo "$git_status" | grep -qv '^.. scripts/package';
> then
> + printf '%s' -dirty
> + fi
> + elif git diff-index --name-only HEAD | grep -qv
> "^scripts/package"; then
> printf '%s' -dirty
> fi
>
> --
> 2.19.1.930.g4563a0d9d0-goog
