[SSSD] [PATCHES] Collection, Ref Array, ELAPI

Dmitri Pal dpal at redhat.com
Thu Jan 21 04:31:26 UTC 2010


Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 03:59 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > * I am not resending the COLLECTION patch. Ticket #350 has been open to
> > foster further discussion about the issue.
> > * The refarray is now made common and the attached (or should I say
> > attacked? :-) ) patch addresses ALL issues that have been brought up.
>
> > The ELAPI patch will be sent later. I need to update it to factor in the
> > change in the location of the ref-array.
> > Also I checked that the patch will get much smaller if I ask it to track
> > deletes or moves/copies.
> > It actually gets twice smaller.
>
> > It is really not that big (read bad :-) ). It has about 2000-3000 lines
> > of new code thanks for async processing (not that I wanted it to happen
> > :-) )...
> > But all the rest is just due to the cleanup. For example the module
> > elapi_dispatcher had too many functions that were not related to
> > dispatcher so they got moved around to other modules.
> > Same with elapi_sink, elapi_log etc.
> > Now the code is much better arranged in layers and objects.
>
> > Also the wiki is your helper in review. It has now the write up about
> > ELAPI that I created before I submitted this patch last time.
>
>
> > Happy holidays!
> > Talk to you next year!
>
> > Dmitri
>
>
> Nack.
>
> Line 282 should be:
> printf("Element = %u\n", (unsigned int)ra->elsize);
> Otherwise you're throwing a compilation warning:
>
> ../../../common/refarray/ref_array.c: In function ref_array_debug:
> ../../../common/refarray/ref_array.c:282: warning: format %u expects
> type unsigned int, but argument 2 has type size_t
>

Interesting. It does not produce this warning on my system...
I made the change anyways though I have seen this issue before and then
it went away.
May be it was different part of code.


> ref_array_len is still completely broken. Now, instead of returning 0 on
> error, you're returning 22. This is even worse.
>
> Please either use the approach I showed in an earlier email, or return 0
> and set errno=EINVAL:
>
>     if (!ra) {
>         TRACE_ERROR_STRING("Uninitialized argument.", "");
>         errno=EINVAL;
>         return 0;
>     }
>
> This might be the better approach for you, since if the caller doesn't
> care about an error, they can just ignore errno.
>
>
Uhhhh. Good catch!


> Almost there. :)
>
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel

-- 
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.


-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-REFARRAY-New-referenced-array-object.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 25294 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/attachments/20100120/d0c4f7e4/attachment.bin>


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list