return -1;
}
+int is_packed_transaction_needed(struct ref_store *ref_store,
+ struct ref_transaction *transaction)
+{
+ struct packed_ref_store *refs = packed_downcast(
+ ref_store,
+ REF_STORE_READ,
+ "is_packed_transaction_needed");
+ struct strbuf referent = STRBUF_INIT;
+ size_t i;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (!is_lock_file_locked(&refs->lock))
+ BUG("is_packed_transaction_needed() called while unlocked");
+
+ /*
+ * We're only going to bother returning false for the common,
+ * trivial case that references are only being deleted, their
+ * old values are not being checked, and the old `packed-refs`
+ * file doesn't contain any of those reference(s). This gives
+ * false positives for some other cases that could
+ * theoretically be optimized away:
+ *
+ * 1. It could be that the old value is being verified without
+ * setting a new value. In this case, we could verify the
+ * old value here and skip the update if it agrees. If it
+ * disagrees, we could either let the update go through
+ * (the actual commit would re-detect and report the
+ * problem), or come up with a way of reporting such an
+ * error to *our* caller.
+ *
+ * 2. It could be that a new value is being set, but that it
+ * is identical to the current packed value of the
+ * reference.
+ *
+ * Neither of these cases will come up in the current code,
+ * because the only caller of this function passes to it a
+ * transaction that only includes `delete` updates with no
+ * `old_id`. Even if that ever changes, false positives only
+ * cause an optimization to be missed; they do not affect
+ * correctness.
+ */
+
+ /*
+ * Start with the cheap checks that don't require old
+ * reference values to be read:
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < transaction->nr; i++) {
+ struct ref_update *update = transaction->updates[i];
+
+ if (update->flags & REF_HAVE_OLD)
+ /* Have to check the old value -> needed. */
+ return 1;
+
+ if ((update->flags & REF_HAVE_NEW) && !is_null_oid(&update->new_oid))
+ /* Have to set a new value -> needed. */
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * The transaction isn't checking any old values nor is it
+ * setting any nonzero new values, so it still might be able
+ * to be skipped. Now do the more expensive check: the update
+ * is needed if any of the updates is a delete, and the old
+ * `packed-refs` file contains a value for that reference.
+ */
+ ret = 0;
+ for (i = 0; i < transaction->nr; i++) {
+ struct ref_update *update = transaction->updates[i];
+ unsigned int type;
+ struct object_id oid;
+
+ if (!(update->flags & REF_HAVE_NEW))
+ /*
+ * This reference isn't being deleted -> not
+ * needed.
+ */
+ continue;
+
+ if (!refs_read_raw_ref(ref_store, update->refname,
+ oid.hash, &referent, &type) ||
+ errno != ENOENT) {
+ /*
+ * We have to actually delete that reference
+ * -> this transaction is needed.
+ */
+ ret = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ strbuf_release(&referent);
+ return ret;
+}
+
struct packed_transaction_backend_data {
/* True iff the transaction owns the packed-refs lock. */
int own_lock;