On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 16:26 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > Step 6) Remove record R3(hash_1:4, hash_2:3) stored at slot index 0x43 > a) Remove record R3 from chain starting by hash R3->hash1 (value 4) > hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL > hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL > hash[3] -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL > hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL > hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL > > b) Remove record R3 from chain starting by hash R3->hash2 (value 3) > hash[1] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL > hash[2] -> 0x12(R1) -> 0x43(R3) -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL > hash[3] -> MC_INVALID_VAL > hash[4] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL > hash[5] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL > > I do not see how this happens, in hash[3] you have another record after R3 so hash[3] should be
hash[3] -> 0x54(R4) -> MC_INVALID_VAL however I do see how R3 would remain in hash[1] and hash[2]. And that is a problem, the problem I was trying to wrap my mind around with the patch you proposed last time. Wouldn't the revalidation idea I had last time fix this issue ? 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