On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:55:27PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>I haven't tested the patch yet, but I would recommend
to drop difftime()
>>>because pwd_exp_warning and ppolicy->expire are integers and just using
>>>'<' or '>' would be easier and better to read.
>>>
>>>That said I think the current logic is flawed. As you said of
>>>pwd_exp_warning is 0 difftime returns value <= 0 and the expire time is
>>>added to the response. But if pwd_exp_warning is positive
>>>ppolicy->expire must be larger than pwd_exp_warning to be added to the
>>>response. This means the warning is only printed if it is still longer
>>>than the time given in pwd_expiration_warning.
>>>
>>>bye,
>>>Sumit
>>
>>
>>You are correct sir. Thank you. Looks like I forgot to test the option.
>>
>>I'm sending a new patch. I don't have time to test it myself right now,
>>but I don't want to delay 1.9.3 if with any luck it is going to be
>>released today.
>>
>>I'll try it tomorrow if it's still pending, though I'm quite
>>confident it will work.
>>
>>
>
>Patch looks good, applies to master and compiles without warning. I
>didn't had a chance to test it either so I'll give a tentative ACK to
>not delay 1.9.3. I'll try to do some testing later today.
>
>bye,
>Sumit
Thanks,
I just tried it and it works as expected.
Thank you. Pushed to master and sssd-1-9