Simo Sorce wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 09:51 -0500, Dmitri Pal wrote: > >> 0002 - Dhash improvement. See patch comments. (independent patch) >> > > I am leaning on nacking this one. > It is redundant and basically just duplicates code. > > The only difference between hash_lookup+hash_delete and hash_remove is > one less lookup, if that's the point one can simply modify hash_delete > to return the value, or not modify anything and use the delete_callback. > > Duplicating code is not the best way. > > Simo. > > Yes I looked at this one and was concerned with the same thing but I could not find a way to make less duplication of the code. I did not want to modify the existing function since I did not want to go hunting all the places where it might be used. But I also was concerned about the duplication as you are and tried to fund a way to use a common function internally for the two or one wrap another but I ended up doing what I did since I did not find a better way of doing things. May be I am missing something.
-- Thank you, Dmitri Pal Engineering Manager IPA project, Red Hat Inc. ------------------------------- Looking to carve out IT costs? www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/ _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel