URL:
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/1018
Title: #1018: mem-cache: sizes of free and data tables were made consistent
sumit-bose commented:
"""
> but I have to admit that I would prefer to have a more minimal
patch for 1-16 which only fixes the too small free table issue. E.g. something like
`mc_ctx->ft_size = MC_FT_SIZE(mc_ctx->dt_size);` (not tested).
`ft_size` should be based on amount of slots (not bytes) it data table.
ah, sorry, I forgot `/MC_SLOT_SIZE` which should be safe here but is nevertheless ugly.
But most importantly, could you please explain what is the functional difference / what
sense does it make to stick to misleading `SSS_AVG_*_PAYLOAD`?
I think there is (almost) no change from user perspective / observed behavior. But code
is simpler/cleaner and thus easier to maintain.
I also think it makes sense for "core" components to keep difference between
1-16 and master branch small (where possible).
My thinking was to keep the difference in the 1-16 branch as small a possible to make it
more easy to spot changes which caused unexpected behavior or issues.
But you are right, since it is expected that we will backport patches to 1-16 for some
time, it might be easier to keep the difference to master small.
I'll run some tests with the current version.
bye,
Sumit
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/1018#issuecomment-610330570