On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 03:54:51PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:49:21PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/19/2015 05:56 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > >On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >>
> > >>We also set
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:49:21PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2015 05:56 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >>
> >>We also set allow_paging = true if some controls are to be used without
> >>checking the scope. I
On 10/20/2015 03:54 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
ease see updated attached patch set.
Thank you, I do not have any further comments and the patches pass CI as
well http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/30/83/summary.html, so ACK.
Please note that the 1st patch only supress the "LDAP sizelimit was
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
> On 10/15/2015 11:24 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:09:25PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 10/14/2015 01:07 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 10/14/2015 01:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>
On 10/19/2015 12:00 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
[snip]
I'm not sure how to handle this:
1) remove boolean (allow_paging, sizelimit_silent, ...) fields from state
altogether and use flags field for writing and reading.
- if
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2015 12:00 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> [snip]
> >>I'm not sure how to handle this:
> >>1) remove boolean (allow_paging, sizelimit_silent, ...)
On 10/19/2015 05:56 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
[snip]
We also set allow_paging = true if some controls are to be used without
checking the scope. I added warning for that case (please let me know if it's
useless).
I'm afraid they
On 10/15/2015 11:24 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:09:25PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/14/2015 01:07 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/14/2015 01:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:51:39PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
[snip]
So far I liked the flags
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:09:25PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
> On 10/14/2015 01:07 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 10/14/2015 01:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:51:39PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> [snip]
> >>>So far I liked the flags attribute which controls
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 11:21:54AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>
> I personally don't care about unsigned vs unsigned int, but see my
> comment about the request inline..
>
> > From 2281410185205ab3fc483f4c45b1b1378b62c331 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Pavel Reichl
> >
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:51:39PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 11:21:54AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >
> > I personally don't care about unsigned vs unsigned int, but see my
> > comment about the request inline..
> >
> > > From 2281410185205ab3fc483f4c45b1b1378b62c331
On 10/14/2015 01:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:51:39PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 11:21:54AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I personally don't care about unsigned vs unsigned int, but see my
comment about the request inline..
From
On 10/14/2015 01:07 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/14/2015 01:01 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:51:39PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
[snip]
So far I liked the flags attribute which controls the behaviour of
sdap_get_generic_ext_send() best (and I agree that allow_paging
On 10/12/2015 07:50 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (09/10/15 20:02), Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/09/2015 02:05 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (09/10/15 13:56), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I
On 10/09/2015 08:02 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/09/2015 02:05 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (09/10/15 13:56), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I personally don't care about unsigned vs
Hi everyone,
we just discussed 'function wrapper' topic offline.
I agree that it is not ideal to add new parameter to the function. And I
agree that in languages like C, we have return value model.
On the other hand, we have clean code on our minds. So I think that
wrappers like:
# int
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:50:39AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> The returned error code is equivalent to exception in high level programming
> languages. If you don't know how to handle error in such languages you just
> throw/raise an exception and caller function should handle such error.
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 02:05 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >On (09/10/15 13:56), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>
> I
On (09/10/15 20:02), Michal Židek wrote:
>On 10/09/2015 02:05 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (09/10/15 13:56), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>
>I personally don't care about
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
> On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >
> >I personally don't care about unsigned vs unsigned int, but see my
> >comment about the request inline..
> >
> >> From 2281410185205ab3fc483f4c45b1b1378b62c331 Mon Sep 17
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:56:22PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > >
> > >I personally don't care about unsigned vs unsigned int, but see my
> > >comment about the request
On (09/10/15 13:56), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> >
>> >I personally don't care about unsigned vs unsigned int, but see my
>> >comment about the request inline..
>> >
>> >> From
On 10/09/2015 02:05 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (09/10/15 13:56), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I personally don't care about unsigned vs unsigned int, but see my
comment about the request
I personally don't care about unsigned vs unsigned int, but see my
comment about the request inline..
> From 2281410185205ab3fc483f4c45b1b1378b62c331 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pavel Reichl
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:05:30 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning -
On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I personally don't care about unsigned vs unsigned int, but see my
comment about the request inline..
From 2281410185205ab3fc483f4c45b1b1378b62c331 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pavel Reichl
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:05:30
On 09/29/2015 08:46 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (25/09/15 14:31), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 09/25/2015 01:59 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (25/09/15 13:30), Pavel Reichl wrote:
Hello,
please see simple patch attached.
Thanks!
>From 5717c6effcb0ac0cd16b4863adba088c9b1f0b90 Mon Sep 17
On (25/09/15 14:31), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
>On 09/25/2015 01:59 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (25/09/15 13:30), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>please see simple patch attached.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>
>>>From 5717c6effcb0ac0cd16b4863adba088c9b1f0b90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>From: Pavel
Hello,
please see simple patch attached.
Thanks!
>From 5717c6effcb0ac0cd16b4863adba088c9b1f0b90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pavel Reichl
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:05:30 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check
Add new parameter
On 09/25/2015 01:59 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (25/09/15 13:30), Pavel Reichl wrote:
Hello,
please see simple patch attached.
Thanks!
From 5717c6effcb0ac0cd16b4863adba088c9b1f0b90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pavel Reichl
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:05:30 -0400
On (25/09/15 13:30), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>Hello,
>
>please see simple patch attached.
>
>Thanks!
>From 5717c6effcb0ac0cd16b4863adba088c9b1f0b90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Pavel Reichl
>Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:05:30 -0400
>Subject: [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit
30 matches
Mail list logo