On (26/08/14 13:41), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (10/04/14 15:05), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (10/04/14 14:10), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:44:08PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>> On (10/04/14 12:11), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>> >On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 11:11 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:34:10AM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>> >> > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 21:19 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>> >> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:27:28PM +0200, Pavel Reichl
wrote:
>>> >> > > > On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 18:13 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>> >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:22:04PM +0200, Pavel
Reichl wrote:
>>> >> > > > > > Hello,
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > I noticed these two warnings in clang.
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > It would be great if the 2nd patch could be
checked by Sumit to make
>>> >> > > > > > sure that the return value wasn't
ignored on purpose.
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > yes, I would prefer to ignore errors here. There
might be various cases
>>> >> > > > > were we are not able to resolve a single SID but
still can proceed with
>>> >> > > > > the others.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Please see attached patch. Feel free to NACK it, if
you think it's more
>>> >> > > > pain than gain.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Why not do something useful to avoid the compiler warning
and print a
>>> >> > > SSSDBG_TRACE_ALL debug message with the returned error
code in the case
>>> >> > > of an error?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Hello Sumit,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I just took your previous response too literally - "I
would prefer to
>>> >> > ignore errors here" - my bad. (Hopefully final) patch
attached.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you. ACK
>>> >>
>>> >> I wonder if the explicit (unsigned int) casts are needed to avoid
>>> >> warnings or if you are just calling them to be on the safe side?
>>> >
>>> >Honestly, I just copy&past them. When I removed them I didn't
notice any
>>> If you copy&past this code then explicit casting is in two places.
>>> In future, it can in 3, 4, 5 ...
>>>
>>> >relevant clang or gcc warnings. I asked Jakub and he advised me that I
>>> >could have used formatting macros PRIu16 and PRIu32.
>>> >
>>> >I would suggest to leave patch as is for now.
>>> >
>>> Is it a problem to send another patch?
>>>
>>> LS
>>
>>If you have time to convert the debug messages, then by all means, send
>>a patch. Maybe this could be a nice intern task? :-)
What about this patch?
LS
From b7d33f8ef584cb1e57fb4a286959a9ddf8aed7f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
2001
From: Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn(a)redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:35:23 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] SDAP: Fix using of uninitialized variable
When group was posix and id mapping was not enabled then variable gid was
used uninitialized.
Fixing commit description: id mapping *must be* enabled.
updated version attached.
LS