On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 06:42:05PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:16:05PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (02/06/14 10:01), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 07:26:49AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> On (01/06/14 19:23), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >> >On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 06:22:05PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> >> On (27/05/14 16:32), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >> >> >On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 01:03:42PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 11:24 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik
wrote:
> >> >> >> > O
> >> >> >> > >The fact of passing pointer to the same area in
memory to 2 separate
> >> >> >> > >arguments of sss_parse_name() is what I called
potential source of bugs.
> >> >> >> > >You said "It seems strange to me" so I
hope you know what I mean.
> >> >> >> > It is strange, but it isn't wrong.
> >> >> >> > * orig_name refers to old string
> >> >> >> > * homedir_ctx->username will refer to new
string.
> >> >> >> > I need to use old string in debug message if
function fails.
> >> >> >> I missed that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I did some testing and all seems to be working, so ACK to
all patches.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In the third patch, you need to add the file
> >> >> >src/man/include/override_homedir.xml into src/man/po/po4a.cfg
to make sure
> >> >> You ment homedir_substring.xml
> >> >
> >> >Yes :)
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >it's processed for translations.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Added
> >> >>
> >> >> >Can you ask some native English speaker to check the contents
of the
> >> >> >text added?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As a side note, it would be nice to treat any refactoring as
an
> >> >> >opportunity for adding more unit tests. Neither
expand_homedir_template
> >> >> >nor sss_parse_name_const have any tests.
> >> >> The test for expand_homedir_template is in separate commit,
> >> >> because patches with refactoring are complicated enough.
> >> >>
> >> >> LS
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for the unit test!
> >> >
> >> >I don't have any other comments about functionality or code, just
please
> >> >amend the man pages as Stephen suggested.
> done
>
> >> will do after agreement about allocation of homedir_ctx.
> >> I do not want to send patchset more than once :-).
> >>
> >> >
> >> >One more improvement might be that you don't have to allocate the
> >> >homedir_ctx most of the time,
> >> It is just a *one* allocation and reason is to have a zero initialized
> >> structure. If you really want to avoid one call of talloc_zero I can
replace it
> >> with structure allocated on stack and zeroing structure with memset.
> >
> >We have a ZERO_STRUCT call precisely for this reason.
> >
> done
>
> >This patch is targeted for sssd-1-11 and we're close to the 1.11.6
> >deadline. If you think you can spin up another version quickly, then
> >please do, otherwise let's clean up the unneeded allocation in 1.12.
>
> new version attached
>
> LS
Perfect, thank you.
We can decide about ZERO_STRUCT/{ 0 } later, but I'd like to include
these patches in 1.11.6 and the deadline is looming..
The patches work fine and look good to me.
ACK
Pushed to master:
59af140ef81f6d0f10db9549089998f5e05631cb
ae0a5011e2644eaa482ea1b9e1451eff05c676b9
5cd660aaa885bca95ac3dca660bb77e5786d5f8e
be7eabee6b7eb8def2441bf5de4c6d4950c155bf
Can you also send a version that applies cleanly on top of sssd-1-11 ?
(or point out patches that need backporting before yours)