On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:01:07PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 08/26/2014 11:37 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 08:18:15PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>On 08/25/2014 06:21 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 05:23:44PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>I tested the patch and it fixes the problem described in the ticket.
>>>>
>>>>I personally dislike the break and mainly the continue check - I believe
>>>>that people reading the code would benefit from encapsulating the inner
loop
>>>>into function (return value would indicate what is happening and
function
>>>>name is the best comment anyway) and same would go for the outer loop
IMO.
>>>That's a fair comment. Would you prefer to split the for loop into one
>>>function or two?
>>two, but I can live with one :-)
>OK, see the attached patches. Please note I wasn't able to test them
>properly because my new AD test servers don't carry POSIX attributes
>yet. I'll test the patches in a short while, in the meantime, feel free
>to test in your environment and/or look at the code.
>
After applying the patches I can't replicate the problem any longer.
Thanks for the code style change I think it's better now.
Just 2 little details, please see inline, but I'm willing to ACK patches as
are now.
I fixed both. Thanks for the review.