[SSSD] [PATCH] confdb: Remove unused function confdb_get_long

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Wed Sep 30 05:42:56 UTC 2015


On (29/09/15 17:45), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:38:58AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:50:06AM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 09/29/2015 10:44 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> > >On (29/09/15 10:42), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>On 09/29/2015 10:35 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> > >>>On (29/09/15 10:16), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> > >>>>On 09/29/2015 10:08 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> > >>>>>On (29/09/15 08:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>On 09/29/2015 08:31 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>On (27/09/15 12:49), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>Hello, please see trivial patch attached.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>From b9f938087973444f0ec26fc24ad68dca7ac63034 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > >>>>>>>>From: Pavel Reichl <reichl.pavel at gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:34:20 +0200
>> > >>>>>>>>Subject: [PATCH] confdb: Remove unused function confdb_get_long
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>---
>> > >>>>>>>>src/confdb/confdb.c | 51 ---------------------------------------------------
>> > >>>>>>>>1 file changed, 51 deletions(-)
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>diff --git a/src/confdb/confdb.c b/src/confdb/confdb.c
>> > >>>>>>>>index c097aad7745eda4fff051c7da027776f95db0f03..eebd478f74041d2050df9edc283df43a65462340 100644
>> > >>>>>>>>--- a/src/confdb/confdb.c
>> > >>>>>>>>+++ b/src/confdb/confdb.c
>> > >>>>>>>>@@ -475,57 +475,6 @@ failed:
>> > >>>>>>>>     return ret;
>> > >>>>>>>>}
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>-long confdb_get_long(struct confdb_ctx *cdb,
>> > >>>>>>>>-                     const char *section, const char *attribute,
>> > >>>>>>>>-                     long defval, long *result)
>> > >>>>>>>>-{
>> > >>>>>>>Would it be better to consider this function as confdb API
>> > >>>>>>>and add to src/confdb/confdb.h?
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>It could be.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>It might be useful in the future.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>I thought that out policy towards unused functions were to remove them.
>> > >>>>>Could you point me to the description of such policy?
>> > >>>>>I'm not aware of it.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>I don't think it's written anywhere
>> > >>>Good to know. I thought I missed something
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>I just saw we did it repeatedly before and thought it's our general practice.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>One more time:
>> > >>>If we consider confdb as library than we should never remove functions.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Removing functions from other parts of code is something
>> > >>>else.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>>We did so in commit 2b94ab415b30861f42b68725d9231905baf8c3bd
>> > >>>>>I didn't notice that patch. I'm sorry I do not have a time
>> > >>>>>to follow each patchset.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>>We can always resurrect removed code if needed.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>If we consider confdb as library than
>> > >>>>>we should never remove functions.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>Then we should decide which parts of SSSD are public libraries and which are not, then we could avoid this kind of discussions.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>I wrote "consider confdb as library" and not as a public library with
>> > >>>stable API. And libraries many times contains function which are not used.
>> > >>>So we should not remove them. Even though it would be still in git history.
>> > >>
>> > >>Why? If we don't use them and nobody else does why do we have to keep them?
>> > >>
>> > >libraries many times contains function which are not used
>> > 
>> > Well, but if they are not public we can change that, right? We can change them as we need and removing unused code is one of those things. I don't see the difference between private library and 'other parts of code'.
>> 
>> I think we should be explicit here. If we want to consider confdb as a
>> library we should make it a public library with a stable API with all
>> the consequences. In general I think this is not a bad idea e.g. with
>> respect to all the config related tickets we have planned for 1.14. But
>> we should define the initial version of a stable API, based on the
>> result and requirements from the 1.14 tickets.
>
>I'm more with Simo here that we shouldn't consider confdb and sysdb as
>stable ABIs, at least not yet. I think we need the flexibility of a private,
>unstable library.
>
>At the same time, I think we should try harder to avoid polluting the
>sysdb/confdb APIs with new calls and in general strive to make even the
>internal APIs easily usable. Here I agree with Lukas that the
>current interface is not very nice -- and the sysdb interface would be
>something that any new external contributor would be confronted with.
>
>Maybe when we review (hint, nudge, nudge) Michal's sysdb patches, we can
>take a look at the API and massage it a bit, move related functions
>together in the header files and merge or remove extra functions? (Yes,
>we can also file a ticket, but I don't think it would land in a
>milestone where we would touch it soon...)
>
>> 
>> Having private/internal libraries with a more relaxed policy might turn
>> out to be problematic as e.g. can be seen by some internal samba
>> libraries which are used by us, OpenChange and maybe other projects
>> where upstream changes might force changes in the other projects as
>> well. Ok, the argument here is that they shouldn't have been used in the
>> first place, but what's the point in re-implementing existing
>> functionality.
>> 
>> Currently I wouldn't see libsss_util where confdb.c is included as a
>> library at all, but just as a mean to make the build process easier and
>> faster.
>> 
>> Coming to the original topic of the discussion, I would agree to remove
>> confdb_get_long() because it is nowhere used (and it looks like it
>> never was) and it does not even have a test.
>
>Is that an ack? :-)
No,
I still do not think that removing function and adding it back after few months
is a good idea. Better would be to include to confdb.h and write tests.

But it seems that I'm a single person in opposition.
So someone else need to ACK it.

LS


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list