On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 20:29 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:39:53PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 23:15 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > Attached find a somewhat big patchset composed of 59 patches. > > > These patches start to address #1747 by changing a fundamental issue in > > > the current code where the sysdb_ctx structure includes a reference to a > > > sss_domain_info one. > > > > > > The issue is that we now have multiple named domain in a single sysdb > > > database so a univocal sysdb->domain relationship doesn't represent > > > reality anymore. > > > > > > So far we have coped by somewhat faking up sysdb contexts for domains > > > but this is all backwards and makes it hard to predict if code is > > > behaving correctly. > > > > > > Although this patchset is huge the bulk is just a series of painstaking > > > patches to change a ton of interfaces to take a sss_domain_info > > > structure in input so we can avoid ambiguity about which domain the > > > sysdb is asked to deal with. > > > > > > As mentioned this is just an 'initial' patchset, there are still other > > > aspects to handle as part o #1747 but this patchset is self-contained > > > and big enough it would only make it harder to get in if we waited for > > > more changes to pile on top. > > > > > > The patchset is attached in tar.gz format (sorry but unpacked is too > > > big, ~650K) > > > > > > I will keep rebasing this[0] branch on top of master with this same > > > patchset, and I recommend for your sanity to pull from there rather than > > > try to apply 59 patches for patchfiles. The reason is that this patchset > > > touches a lot of code and any new commit in master is almost certainly > > > going to require a rebase to this patchset. > > > > > > Keep in mind that the general principle in building this patchset was to > > > try to have the least impact on the code, not necessarily to beautify > > > the code I was going to touch, this in order to make it very clear what > > > is changed and ckeep churn to a bare minimum, so I haven't changed > > > things like DEBUG levels to avoid any noise and additional great pain in > > > the inevitable rebases that are to come. > > > > > > I did test the code on my install with multiple trusts, and it seem to > > > be working correctly with normal and subdomain users. > > > > > > Happy reviewing :) > > > > > > Simo. > > > > > > [0] > > > http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/simo/public_git/sssd.git/log/?h=sysdb_refactor > > > > > > Note: The git tree has actually 63 patchse on top of master, the first 4 > > > are pre-requisite patches I already sent to the list for review > > > separately. > > > > FYI: I rebased my public git tree against the current master as the > > latest patches that went in caused conflicts. > > That's fine, I started reviewing the patches from your git tree. I still > think it was a good idea to send the patch to the ML as the archive will > keep them forever :-)
I am sure the master tree will as well :) But I'll resend them to the list when I will make actual changes, seem a waste on rebases as I do them daily. > I'll make comments as replies to this thread. Thanks. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel