On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 01:59:27PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (10/02/16 10:31), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>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
>
There were some conflicts on 1-11
Attached are backported patch + dependencies for 1.11 branch.
Changes are bigger than I expected therefore I executed
tests I'm not sure when they will finish.
Meanwhile it would be good to review/(cross-check) bacported
version of patches.
LS
I only inspected the diffs, but they look OK to me, please push..