Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 04/22/2010 06:44 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> It didn't cause any issues, but I think hostnames should be treated as
>> case-insensitive
>
>
> It hasn't caused any issues YET.
>
> I agree, this should be case-inse
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 04/21/2010 08:35 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
>> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> On 04/21/2010 03:10 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:04 +1000, David O'Brien wrote:
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 14:24 +1000, David O'Brien wrote:
>
Hi,
here it is. I included some description in the commit log, it is
necessary to read it in order to understand why I did some things this
way. Any suggestions to make the patch better are most welcome.
Martin
>From 228bfdcc000e93be5908ef9ba28aee13385c258d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Na
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:17:23 +0200
Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 22 April 2010 17:03:23 schrieb Sumit Bose:
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 04:37:36PM +0200, Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag 22 April 2010 12:08:46 schrieb Sumit Bose:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > the two patches attac
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:28 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:58:10PM +0200, Martin Nagy wrote:
> > On 04/16/2010 12:22 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > to support the current effort to make the LDAP provider more robust this
> > > patch removes all the #ifdef HAVE_LD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[PATCH 1/2] Remove freed server_common entities from list
We didn't hit this before as we never removed common entities. When
using service requests, we remove the resolved fo_servers when we hit a
timeout, so the server_common can be also removed.
[P
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:28 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:58:10PM +0200, Martin Nagy wrote:
> > On 04/16/2010 12:22 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > to support the current effort to make the LDAP provider more robust this
> > > patch removes all the #ifdef HAVE_LD
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:58:10PM +0200, Martin Nagy wrote:
> On 04/16/2010 12:22 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > to support the current effort to make the LDAP provider more robust this
> > patch removes all the #ifdef HAVE_LDAP_CONNCB calls from the main code
> > into a separate file which
Am Donnerstag 22 April 2010 17:03:23 schrieb Sumit Bose:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 04:37:36PM +0200, Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag 22 April 2010 12:08:46 schrieb Sumit Bose:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > the two patches attached should fix #446 and #417 respectively.
> > >
> > > For #417 a diff
On 04/23/2010 12:21 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 11 times out of 10, it's a bad idea to use inline explicitly. Modern
> compilers will automatically optimize small functions into inline
> where it is safe to do so.
Yes, but gcc can't inline it if it is defined in another translation
unit, altho
10 matches
Mail list logo