On 11/03/2012 12:01 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 22:58 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
+#define SSSDBG_IMPORTANT_INFO 0x0010 /* level 0 */
#define SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE 0x0010 /* level 0 */
#define SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE 0x0020 /* level 1 */
#define SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE 0x
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 22:58 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> I'm sending a new set of patches. There are the three original and two
> new.
>
The changes on the three original patches are all good, ack on those.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 22:58 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> +#define SSSDBG_IMPORTANT_INFO 0x0010 /* level 0 */
> #define SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE 0x0010 /* level 0 */
> #define SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE 0x0020 /* level 1 */
> #define SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE 0x0040 /* level 2 */
Uhm I am not part
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 22:58 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
Ok if you are fixing indent also fix style while there please so we do
this once.
> +/* try and use up these file descriptors, so silly
> + library routines writing to stdout etc won't cause havoc */
> +for (i=0;i<3;i++) {
sh
On 11/02/2012 06:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 17:36 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
+if (ctx->is_daemon && ctx->parent_pid > 0
+&& ctx->parent_pid == getppid()) {
+if (ctx->parent_pid <= 0 || ctx->parent_pid != getppid())
{
+/* th
On 11/02/2012 06:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 17:36 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
+if (ctx->is_daemon && ctx->parent_pid > 0
+&& ctx->parent_pid == getppid()) {
+if (ctx->parent_pid <= 0 || ctx->parent_pid != getppid())
{
+/* th
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 17:36 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> From 99c4a968889c4ee6d0f3015b160152da8c733960 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Pavel=20B=C5=99ezina?=
> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:46:48 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] create pid file immediately after fork again
>
> Related to http
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 17:36 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> +void become_daemon(bool Fork, pid_t *ppid)
> {
> -int ret;
> +pid_t pid;
> +int status;
> +int ret;
>
> - if (Fork) {
> - if (fork()) {
> - _exit(0);
> - }
> -
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 17:36 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
>
> I'm sending another set of patches after our offline discussion.
>
>
For patch 2 it looks like you did a re-indent of become_daemon(), but
didn't fully re-indent it.
Maybe it would be better to send a re-indent patch first and then on
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 19:11 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:53:52PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 17:36 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > > +if (ctx->is_daemon && ctx->parent_pid > 0
> > > +&& ctx->parent_pid == getppid()) {
> > > +
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:53:52PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 17:36 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > +if (ctx->is_daemon && ctx->parent_pid > 0
> > +&& ctx->parent_pid == getppid()) {
> > +if (ctx->parent_pid <= 0 || ctx->parent_pid != getppi
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 17:36 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> +if (ctx->is_daemon && ctx->parent_pid > 0
> +&& ctx->parent_pid == getppid()) {
> +if (ctx->parent_pid <= 0 || ctx->parent_pid != getppid())
> {
> +/* the parent process was already termin
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 10:10 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 09:50 AM, Stef Walter wrote:
> > On 11/02/2012 01:57 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> >> First let us define a general rule about how we treat the cases:
> >> X =
> >> Is it treated as X being undefined or X having an empty value.
> >> It
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:35 +0100, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> On 2.11.2012 15:56, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:16 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> >> On 11/02/2012 07:22 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
> >>> On 11/02/2012 11:10 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 10:46 AM, Martin Kosek wrot
On 2.11.2012 15:56, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:16 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 11/02/2012 07:22 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 11/02/2012 11:10 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 11/02/2012 10:46 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 11/01/2012 07:28 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 10:59
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 11:16 -0400, John Dennis wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 10:56 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > I do not like the trac approach because it is not automatic, so it is
> > completely inconsistent, and also because trac is extremely slow.
>
> Factoring out the whole patchwork issue I do have to
On 11/02/2012 10:56 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
I do not like the trac approach because it is not automatic, so it is
completely inconsistent, and also because trac is extremely slow.
Factoring out the whole patchwork issue I do have to agree with Simo
that using trac is painful because it's so slow
On 11/02/2012 10:56 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:16 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>> On 11/02/2012 07:22 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2012 11:10 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 11/02/2012 10:46 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 07:28 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:16 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 07:22 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
> > On 11/02/2012 11:10 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> >> On 11/02/2012 10:46 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >>> On 11/01/2012 07:28 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 10:59 -0400, Rob Crittende
On 11/02/2012 09:50 AM, Stef Walter wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 01:57 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>> First let us define a general rule about how we treat the cases:
>> X =
>> Is it treated as X being undefined or X having an empty value.
>> It should be a general documented rule for the application.
>>
>> Cu
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:50:45PM +0100, Stef Walter wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 01:57 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> > First let us define a general rule about how we treat the cases:
> > X =
> > Is it treated as X being undefined or X having an empty value.
> > It should be a general documented rule for the
On 11/02/2012 01:57 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> First let us define a general rule about how we treat the cases:
> X =
> Is it treated as X being undefined or X having an empty value.
> It should be a general documented rule for the application.
>
> Current behavior is to ignore and I think it is the r
On 11/02/2012 07:22 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 11:10 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> On 11/02/2012 10:46 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2012 07:28 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 10:59 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Rob Crittenden wrote:
>> Simo Sorce wrote:
>
On 11/02/2012 06:51 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:09:53AM +0100, Ondrej Kos wrote:
>> On 11/01/2012 09:51 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 16:09 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 11/01/2012 03:04 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 10:53 -0400, Dmi
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:09:53AM +0100, Ondrej Kos wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 09:51 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 16:09 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> >>On 11/01/2012 03:04 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 10:53 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 09:11 AM, Simo
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 03:04:11PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> It's because the DB cannot hold an empty value.
> With the current interface empty value = No value.
>
You can easily check for an option being present with
confdb_get_param(). Then look at its value to determine if there is any
(and i
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 05:36:10PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 01:51 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:10:38PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>On 10/22/2012 01:49 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>>On 10/19/2012 02:20 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at
On 11/01/2012 09:51 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 16:09 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 11/01/2012 03:04 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 10:53 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 11/01/2012 09:11 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 12:03 +0100, Michal Židek wrote:
On 10
28 matches
Mail list logo
