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.