[SSSD] [PATCH] sudo: provide automatic configuration of machine hostnames

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Mon Jul 30 17:13:34 UTC 2012


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 04:14 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:29:26PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> >>Dne středa 25 července 2012 10:34:15, Pavel Březina napsal(a):
> >>>On 07/24/2012 02:16 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>>>On 24.7.2012 14:11, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>>>>On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 12:21 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>>>>>+#include <unistd.h>
> >>>>>>+#include <bits/local_lim.h> // HOST_NAME_MAX
> >>>>>>+#include <string.h>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I guess you attached the old patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Simo.
> >>>>
> >>>>Not exactly. I didn't commit the changes. Thanks. :-)
> >>>>The correct patch is attached.
> >>>
> >>>I'm sending this patch one more time. Now with updated manual page.
> >>
> >>I assume you are going to implement the function to initialize resolver
> >>separately? If yes, either create a ticket for that or send another patch
> >>right now so we don't forget it.
> >>
> >>The rest of the patch is ok, all previous concerns are addressed.
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>Jan
> >
> >Sorry, still a nack. The patch violates the tevent_req style.
> >
> >The steps of sdap_sudo_get_hostnames are named
> >sdap_sudo_get_hostnames_send sdap_sudo_get_hostnames_resolv_done and
> >sdap_sudo_get_hostnames_recv. Moreover, sdap_sudo_get_hostnames_done,
> >which is just callback attached to the async request created by
> >sdap_sudo_get_hostnames_send calls sdap_sudo_get_hostnames_recv. That's
> >very confusing, it looks like some circular request.
> >
> >The asynchronous functions that perform "foo" must be named "foo_send",
> >"foo_done", and "foo_recv" and should be placed in this order in the
> >source file. If the request consists of multiple steps, they may be named
> >differently, but when the request ends, there should be foo_done callback
> >called. This may seem like nitpicking, but the asynchronous processing is
> >hard to follow as it is..
> >
> >Also, please check lines that are over the 80-characters limit.
> 
> Done.
> 
> After a discussion with Jakub, it seems that
> CONFDB_DOMAIN_RESOLV_OP_TIMEOUT should be used after all.
> 
> I have created a ticket to create utility functions to create a new
> context and to handle CONFDB_DOMAIN_RESOLV_TIMEOUT timeout.

Ack and pushed to master.



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list