On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:48:29PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 11:32 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:15:17AM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:45:48AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:27:48AM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:37:39PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 17:33 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:56:12AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 09:20 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 04:26:36PM -0500, Simo Sorce
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> While checking if our custom signal handlers
properly handle errno, I
>>>>>>>>>> stumbled on a few cleanups, they are attached.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> turns out our few signal hanlders are errno safe,
and tevent signal
>>>>>>>>>> handling function is also fine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Simo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
>>>>>>>>>> From 8244f7619c5042dc45751ce3bbff75f2dbc03e05
Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>>>>>> From: Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:11:04 -0500
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Signals: Remove empty
sig_hup
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SIGHUP handling is simply not implemented, so
just block the signal instead of
>>>>>>>>> it is, see te_server_hup() and the usage is
documented in the sssd man
>>>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> using a fake handler.
>>>>>>>> Ok does it mean I need to remove the part where I block
the signal ?
>>>>>>> no, but you have to unblock it in server_setup() and if it is
harmless
>>>>>>> to unblock a signal twice I would unblock it in
monitor_process_init()
>>>>>>> before calling tevent_add_signal() as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any other comment ?
>>>>>>> no, but I still need to test them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The sig_hup(int sig) function *was* useless ? Or is it
there as a place
>>>>>>>> holder until te_server_hup() takes over ?
>>>>>>> no, I think the common patter here is to block everything in
>>>>>>> setup_signals() and then unblock the signal when the related
>>>>>>> tevent_add_signal() is called.
>>>>>> Ok after looking more carefully at how we setup the tevent
handlers for
>>>>>> SIGHUP I just reverted the part of the patch that would block
the
>>>>>> signal, it makes no sense to block it just to revert the action a
few
>>>>>> microseconds later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New patch 0002 attached.
>>>>> Thank you. With this patch SSSD receives and handles all documented
>>>>> signals.
>>>>>
>>>>> ACK
>>>>>
>>>>> While testing I came across an oddness which we might want to fix.
The
>>>>> sssd_be processes can receive SIGUSR1 individually and go offline.
But
>>>>> the SIGUSR2 is not handled by sssd_be directly but only by the
monitor
>>>>> which then send a reset offline request to all backends. Shall
sssd_be
>>>>> handle SIGUSR2 as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> bye,
>>>>> Sumit
>>>> Which patches should be pushed? #1 and #3 from the original mail and #2
>>> >from the follow up?
>>> yes
>>>
>>> bye,
>>> Sumit
>> OK, pushed those three to master.
>> _______________________________________________
>> sssd-devel mailing list
>> sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
> Hello, I'm having some troubles compiling SSSD 1-11 when Samba 4.1.14-1 is
> installed.
> These problem seem to be solved when patch 'Signals: Remove unused
> functions' is applied.
> Can we push it to 1-11 branch?
I don't have a problem with pushing a patch that removes unused static
functions, although Samba really shouldn't export non-namespaced
functions.
Is that another manifestation of:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11033
?
I think the root of the problem is same - samba provides in its public
headers (ndr.h includes samba_util.h) declarations of its functions
(void (*CatchChild(void))(int); void
(*CatchChildLeaveStatus(void))(int);) which conflicts with SSSD
function's (void CatchChild(void); void CatchChildLeaveStatus(void);)
pushed to sssd-1-11 btw:
fea2d8c6aef70f1ba6f7528c261606eac4fcea1c
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel