On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:01 +0200, 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.
> 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.
If it is on the stack, we can simply declare it with a C99 initializer
of 0 ?
Or is this structure reused (hence needs resetting) more than once ?
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York