On (01/09/15 11:06), Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >ehlo, > >attached is alternative version for ticket 2744. >The unit test passed but there is a performance improvement. > >If we compare 3rd patch to current master than >there is a 10 less invocation of malloc (an also other functions) per group. >and we saved allocation of 1091 per group. > >There was a comment[1] in old thread about a possibility of double sanitized dn. >I was not able to find such case. I would be glad if someone >can extend unit test which will pass with master and fail with attached patch. > >LS > >[1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/2015-August/024346.html Bump. LS

On 09/01/2015 11:06 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >ehlo, > >attached is alternative version for ticket 2744. >The unit test passed but there is a performance improvement. > >If we compare 3rd patch to current master than >there is a 10 less invocation of malloc (an also other functions) per group. >and we saved allocation of 1091 per group. > >There was a comment[1] in old thread about a possibility of double sanitized dn. >I was not able to find such case. I would be glad if someone >can extend unit test which will pass with master and fail with attached patch. > >LS > >[1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/2015-August/024346.html Looks like I misunderstood your original proposal. This looks indeed better. I see now why double-sanitization is not an issue. Ack.

On (21/09/15 17:00), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 03:39:50PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote: >> On 09/01/2015 11:06 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>> ehlo, >>> >>> attached is alternative version for ticket 2744. >>> The unit test passed but there is a performance improvement. >>> >>> If we compare 3rd patch to current master than >>> there is a 10 less invocation of malloc (an also other functions) per group. >>> and we saved allocation of 1091 per group. >>> >>> There was a comment[1] in old thread about a possibility of double sanitized dn. >>> I was not able to find such case. I would be glad if someone >>> can extend unit test which will pass with master and fail with attached patch. >>> >>> LS >>> >>> [1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/2015-August/024346.html >> >> Looks like I misunderstood your original proposal. This looks indeed better. >> >> I see now why double-sanitization is not an issue. >> >> Ack. > > CI: http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/26/93/summary.html > > master: > * 2cec08a3174bff951c048c57b4b0e4517ad6b7b1 > * 6cb5bad3c8e2f35ca9dce1800a506d626f90c079 > * 3d8b576bf49a79d5776574b96c6ef9535bbc46ac > * 9c563db822758732b25a3c8c61ffac90a7deffc3 Attached are patches for 1.12 branch LS