On (10/12/15 10:59), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:10:58PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (04/12/15 16:42), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 01:24:54PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2015 12:04 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >> >On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 01:51:54PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >> >>>Thanks, new patches are attached.
> >> >>
> >> >>I had a phone call with Jakub and we decided that it will be better
to use
> >> >>be_req directly instead of lower level sbus_req. This will allow us
to
> >> >>simplify it more.
> >> >
> >> >OK, see the attached patches..
> >>
> >> Hi, thanks for the changes.
> >>
> >> First patch:
[...]
> >@@ -199,6 +205,11 @@ struct be_req *be_req_create(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> > be_req->domain = be_ctx->domain;
> > be_req->fn = fn;
> > be_req->pvt = pvt_fn_data;
> >+ be_req->req_name = talloc_strdup(be_req, name);
> >+ if (be_req->req_name == NULL) {
> >+ talloc_free(be_req);
> >+ return NULL;
> >+ }
> >
> > /* Add this request to active request list and make sure it is
> > * removed on termination. */
> >@@ -242,6 +253,95 @@ void be_req_terminate(struct be_req *be_req,
> > be_req->fn(be_req, dp_err_type, errnum, errstr);
> > }
> >
> >+
> I know it's a nitpick, but you added extra new line here :-)
> and you should change 2nd patch anyway.
I removed the extra line.
> >From d7b00e1ef4984bb17d4ce62b2c206efebb6aea37 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >From: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek(a)redhat.com>
> >Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:40:16 +0100
> >Subject: [PATCH 2/2] DP: Reduce code duplication in Data Provider handlers
> >
> >Instead of setting the three same variables over again, add a structure
> >be_sbus_reply_data with a default initializer BE_SBUS_REPLY_DATA_INIT.
> >
> >The handlers can then set the structure to BE_SBUS_REPLY_DATA_INIT on
> >declaration or set a particular value with be_sbus_reply_data_set.
> >
> >The handler can also reply to the message (typically on failure state)
> >with be_sbus_req_reply_data()
[...]
> >@@ -791,9 +821,8 @@ static int be_get_subdomains(struct sbus_request *dbus_req,
void *user_data)
> > */
> > if (becli->bectx->offstat.offline) {
> > DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC, "Cannot proceed, provider is
offline.\n");
> I wanted to push patches but I moticed that DEBUG message was removed
> in previous case "Undefined backend target", but was not removed here.
> If we want to remove them, please remove them on all places.
> If we do not want to touch them, do not remove it in previous case.
I left the original DEBUG message. I think all the unspecified target
messages could use some love at least to standardize on the same levels,
but we have a dedicated ticket for that..
Thank you
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/34/37/summary.html
master:
* 0741237b3f9209af43d956216b3c2f09b90c4ebc
* 4afc1f2b6ca066d30d2be5ccda9fa760b5a6016e
LS