[PATCH] backend: add PAC to the list of known clients

[Pavel Březina]

This patch hides following message:
[client_registration] (0x0020): Unknown client! [PAC]

[Simo Sorce]

On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 16:47 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> This patch hides following message:
> [client_registration] (0x0020): Unknown client! [PAC]

Ack!

Simo.

[Jakub Hrozek]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:39:57AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 16:47 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > This patch hides following message:
> > [client_registration] (0x0020): Unknown client! [PAC]
>
> Ack!
>
> Simo.

Pushed to master and sssd-1-9

[Sumit Bose]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 04:47:29PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> This patch hides following message:
> [client_registration] (0x0020): Unknown client! [PAC]
> From 0a0437a444e473a3b5b62dc133723a87925a6e2b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?= 
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:44:37 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] backend: add PAC to the list of known clients
>
> src/providers/data_provider_be.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/providers/data_provider_be.c b/src/providers/data_provider_be.c
> index 0ac83f43be797555388d2a2dc1c41a25ddd53c05..253dc46fb3010b2270ef454bb97e47243a18ceed 100644
> --- a/src/providers/data_provider_be.c
> +++ b/src/providers/data_provider_be.c
> @@ -1663,6 +1663,8 @@ static int client_registration(DBusMessage *message,
>          becli->bectx->autofs_cli = becli;
>      } else if (strcasecmp(cli_name, "SSH") == 0) {
>          becli->bectx->ssh_cli = becli;
> } else if (strcasecmp(cli_name, "PAC") == 0) {
>    /* no need to set becli */

I wonder if those becli->bectx->*_cli members are still used somewhere?
The only place I see is be_client_destructor() to print a debug message
with the type of the client. If there is no other use, would it make
sense to open a ticket to remove those member from struct be_ctx?

bye,
Sumit
>  } else {
>      DEBUG(1, ("Unknown client! [%s]\n", cli_name));
>  }
>
> -- 
> 1.7.11.7
> sssd-devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel

[Simo Sorce]

On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 18:31 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> I wonder if those becli->bectx->*_cli members are still used
> somewhere?
> The only place I see is be_client_destructor() to print a debug
> message
> with the type of the client. If there is no other use, would it make
> sense to open a ticket to remove those member from struct be_ctx?

What do you replace the debug messages with ?
It's useful to know when clients disconnect, that's why we have the
msgs.

Simo.

[Sumit Bose]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:36:50PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 18:31 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > I wonder if those becli->bectx->*_cli members are still used
> > somewhere?
> > The only place I see is be_client_destructor() to print a debug
> > message
> > with the type of the client. If there is no other use, would it make
> > sense to open a ticket to remove those member from struct be_ctx?
>
> What do you replace the debug messages with ?

No, I do not want to drop the debug messages, but to make the structs a
bit simpler. What about adding a name member to struct be_client?

bye,
Sumit
> It's useful to know when clients disconnect, that's why we have the
> msgs.
>
> Simo.
>
> -- 
> Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
>
> sssd-devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel

[Simo Sorce]

On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 21:36 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:36:50PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 18:31 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > I wonder if those becli->bectx->*_cli members are still used
> > > somewhere?
> > > The only place I see is be_client_destructor() to print a debug
> > > message
> > > with the type of the client. If there is no other use, would it make
> > > sense to open a ticket to remove those member from struct be_ctx?
> >
> > What do you replace the debug messages with ?
>
> No, I do not want to drop the debug messages, but to make the structs a
> bit simpler. What about adding a name member to struct be_client?

Works for me, propose a patch :)

Simo.