On (15/02/16 18:30), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
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..
Test passed even
with valgrind :-)
sssd-1-11:
* 5232e1e7e3267be04f9bdee614b5f81367050fbd
* af0834223167694bdec7964c451d174213fba1e1
* e25867df505ef5cb2b3843c1a859337782f13383
* e78fc9b264e14058607ee2af6d3830c694a39ff5
LS