On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 08:58:43AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >I discussed the hierarchy some more with Pavel and the proposal is to > >modify the hierarchy as follows: > > > > main_ctx --> rctx +--> dp_requests > > | > > +--> specific_ctx > > > >And then set a desctructor to dp_requests so that it is freed before > >specific_ctx is as destructors of the DP requests might need to access > >data from the specific_ctx. > > > That's an overly complex solution. What's wrong with doing > main_ctx->rctx->specific_ctx->dp_requests? Yes, I realize that > dp_requests is a component of the rctx struct, but as long as we add > comments that its memory hierarchy is maintained as a child of the > specific_ctx, I think we'd be fine.
That's exactly what I proposed to Pavel as well, but he felt it would break the talloc hierarchy. _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
