On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 04:50:33PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (23/10/15 10:22), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:50:07AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
>> On 10/11/2015 10:00 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >the attached patches are my proposal to fix
>> >https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2829
>> >
>> >I haven't tested them past make check yet, because I'm not sure I
like
>> >them myself :) but at the same time I can't see a better way to keep
>> >track of the servers and let callers set state of servers.
>> >
>> >The most ugly thing so far IMO is the fo_internal_owner member. I would
>> >prefer to instead have a fo_server_wrap structure that would be used for
>> >the server_list, but I didn't want to do a large change before we agree
>> >the refcount is a good idea at all.
>>
>> It is not a good idea, but it is a way to go as we agreed on the call.
>>
>> >The other ugly side-effect is that we need to be sure that nobody calls
>> >talloc_free on the fo_server structure. Instead, only the parent context
>> >can be freed (that's also what the first patch is about).
>>
>> Another reason to do failover refactoring soon.
>>
>> Ack to the patches.
>
>Thank you, I squashed the patch that reproduces the error to the patch
>that fixes the bug, because otherwise the test would fail in CI and
>pushed the patches to master:
> * 10c07e188323a2f9824b5e34379f3b1a9b37759e
> * 4a4af8e1b6a9bab7c7a34d86055a400376e3829e
> * 63af9215ea9114062fd87003161e6b5982bf9b1f
Do we plan to include these patches in 1.13.4?
They are in fedora since Nov 20 2015
Yeah, feel free to push them. I was reluctant at first because the user
I developed the patches for seemed to have issues with the patched
build, but I never could get more details about the issue they were
seeing..