On 05/02/2016 11:07 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:47:50AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 08:53 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
>> On 04/28/2016 01:41 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>> On 04/26/2016 09:38 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
>>>> Hi list,
>>>> this simple patch fixes talloc hierarchy in initializing negative caches
>>>> in responders.
>>>> This patch is applicable after .
>>> The patch seems sane, but I think we should rather move ncache to rctx
>>> and its initialization to common responder initialization since we use
>>> it basically everywhere and when we convert responders to cache_req we
>>> will use it even in those responders that don't implement it yet.
>> Hello Pavel,
>> thank you for respond.
>> I think, it is possible. There are two responders which don't use
>> ncache, but it is not obstacle.
> Those are ssh and autofs responders. SSH looks up user and will use
> cache_req which can take advantage of negative cache for free thus autofs
> will be the only one where it is not used. I think it is worth it, but if
> anyone disagrees I can ack this patch since it is definitely correct.
I agree it would be nice to enable them with negative cache, but
wouldn't it be more systematic to convert the ssh responder to cache_req
That is the point. SSH currently doesn't support negative cache. When
the conversion to cache_req is done, it will for free. Thus I asked to
move ncache_ctx into rctx and into common responder initialization so it
needn't be initialized by each responder separately.
For autofs we can file a ticket, I'm not sure we will convert
that one to cache_req at all (and the cache logic there is a bit
different from the other responders anyway IIRC..)