Hi Ben,
Thanks!
So it looks all clean and works.
That said, I would add a couple of tests on strdup you have:
- newnameserver->conf.file = strdup("/etc/resolv.conf");
- newnameserver->id = strdup(address);
and of course, I would do the LIST_ADDQ after those checks.
Just fix this and you get my Ack :)
And thanks for your patience and your retransmits.
Baptiste
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:16 PM, Ben Draut <dra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This should be it. The only outstanding item was a couple of:
>
> if (... != NULL)
> free(...)
>
> at the bottom. Willy said he'd fix those up when he merged.
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Baptiste <bed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a bit lost: could you please re-send me the latest version of this
>> patch?
>>
>> Baptiste
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Ben Draut <dra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Willy, I think you've reviewed this one already. :) I fixed a few
>>> things after your review, then you said you just wanted to wait
>>> for Baptiste to ACK back on 4/27.
>>>
>>> I pinged Baptiste independently, just to make sure he had
>>> seen your note. He replied, but he's been busy too. (Sorry
>>> to add to the pile!) My understanding was that we're just
>>> waiting for him.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:50:29AM -0600, Jim Freeman wrote:
>>>> > I'm not seeing any signs of this feature sliding into 1.9 source - any
>>>> > danger of it not going in to the current dev branch?
>>>> > Are there further concerns/problems/... standing in the way ? (it
>>>> > addresses one of my few haproxy gripes)
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but it's my fault. I'm totally overwhelmed at the moment with
>>>> tons of e-mails that take time to process and that I can't cope with
>>>> anymore. I already have in my todo list to review Ben's patch and
>>>> Patrick's patches and I cannot find any single hour to do this. I'm
>>>> spending some time finishing slides, which are totally incompatible
>>>> with code review, I'll get back to this ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> At least it's not lost at all, and indeed it's not yet in 1.9 but
>>>> I don't see any reason why this wouldn't go there.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Willy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
