On (04/02/16 16:22), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 03:52:35PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:06:37PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> > On 01/25/2016 08:54 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:16:37PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> > >>Hello,
> > >>
> > >>attached patch does not seem to suffer from these errors any more.
> > >>
> > >>Shall I ask user who reported the bug If he is willing to test this new
version of the patch? IIRC he needs more then a week for a testing to be conclusive...
> > >>
> > >>Thanks.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yes, please. We can do the review in the meantime.
> > >
> >
> > User just confirmed that packages seem to be running fine on the test host, no
memory usage growth.
>
> Right and with the help of the talloc patch in the first mail I've also
> verified that the talloc usage stays the same.
>
> ACK
* master: 4231a17e66e0809a9c3d42207b45f95429cbb46c
* sssd-1-13: 3bca87239e3368d61c25f2f6bd2329191eca0dee
sssd-1-12:
* 4a6cae7d917a4c8e1a02cfaf5d27a021dd6545c1
LS