Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-22 Thread Jakub Hrozek
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-20 Thread Sumit Bose
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-20 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-19 Thread Sumit Bose
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: >

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-19 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-19 Thread Sumit Bose
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, ...)

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-19 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-16 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-15 Thread Sumit Bose
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-14 Thread Sumit Bose
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 > >

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-14 Thread Jakub Hrozek
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-14 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-14 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-13 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-13 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-13 Thread Petr Cech
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-12 Thread Jakub Hrozek
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.

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-11 Thread Jakub Hrozek
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-11 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-09 Thread Jakub Hrozek
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-09 Thread Jakub Hrozek
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-09 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-09 Thread Michal Židek
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-06 Thread Jakub Hrozek
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 -

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-10-06 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-09-29 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-09-29 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
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

[SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-09-25 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-09-25 Thread Pavel Reichl
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

Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] SDAP: rem warning - sizelimit exceeded in POSIX check

2015-09-25 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
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