On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:31:03PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:31:32PM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 08:10:02AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 21:43 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > >
> > > I started to change it but didn't like the resulting code, because it
> > > turned out to be complex and hard to follow. Since the original struct
> > > only user 8 or 12 bytes per group (depending if your are on 32bits or
> > > on
> > > 64bits) I would prefer to keep the old struct for this round of
> > > patches.
> > >
> > Sorry can't agree, space is only one of the factors, although completely
> > unnecessarily using 2x or 3x number of groups space is ugly enough,
> > But the main issues are really in the code this structure
> > allows/produces.
> >
> > Still a nack for me.
>
> The attached patch should be applied on top of the other patches and
> changes the struct as you suggested in your first comment.
>
> bye,
> Sumit
Why not squash the patch into the patch that introduces the structure?
The structure was introduced in the first patch and then used in some of
the other patches. I didn't squash the changes into the related patches
to not invalidate the reviews of the others and to allow a better
comparison between the old and the new structure.
bye,
Sumit
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel