On (20/04/16 17:21), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:59:19AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:16 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:54:10PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >> > > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 12:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >> > > > Thanks, IIRC the int-instead of enum use is intentional, I will look >> > > > at the others. >> > > >> > > The last coverity/clang thing is a false positive, but I initialized >> > > reply to NULL anyway, I expect now it will start complaining of possible >> > > NULL dereference :-) >> > > >> > > Attached find patches that fixes all other issues (hopefully), one of >> > > them simply dropped an entire function as it turned out I wasn't using >> > > it. >> > > >> > > Simo. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York >> > >> > > From 4610b546cb37a150ebaee12559c19a17e422708c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > > From: Simo Sorce <s...@redhat.com> >> > > Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:17:38 -0500 >> > > Subject: [PATCH 05/15] Responders: Add support for socket activation >> > >> > ACK (visual at this point) with a question - do we want to check >> > that the fd we received is a UNIX socket using sd_is_socket_unix()? >> > >> > The sd_listen_fds() manpage recommends that. >> >> If they recommend it we should, yes. > >OK, same as with the responder issue, I will prepare a fixup patch and >ask you to check it before squashing into your patches.. > >> >> > > From 3755b157de1309f554a380e58c42c38dcd9cc5aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > > From: Simo Sorce <s...@redhat.com> >> > > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:33:39 -0500 >> > > Subject: [PATCH 06/15] ConfDB: Add helper function to get "subsections" >> > > >> > > The secrets database will have "subsections", ie sections that are in the >> > > "secrets" namespace and look like this: [secrets/<path>] >> > > >> > > This function allows to source any section under secrets/ or under any >> > > arbitrary sub-path. >> > > >> > > Related: >> > > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2913 > >[...] > >> > > +int confdb_get_sub_sections(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx, >> > > + struct confdb_ctx *cdb, >> > > + const char *section, >> > > + char ***sections, >> > > + int *num_sections) >> > > +{ >> > > + TALLOC_CTX *tmp_ctx = NULL; >> > > + char *secdn; >> > > + struct ldb_dn *base = NULL; >> > > + struct ldb_result *res = NULL; >> > > + static const char *attrs[] = {"cn", NULL}; >> > > + char **names; >> > > + int base_comp_num; >> > > + int num; >> > > + int i; >> > >> > Can you use size_t here so that clang doesn't complain about "comparison >> > of integers of different signs: 'int' and 'unsigned int'" in the for >> > loop below? >> >> meh, ok :-) > >Trivial, I can also fix this locally and ask you if it's OK to squash. > >> >> > > + int ret; >> > > + >> > > + tmp_ctx = talloc_new(mem_ctx); >> > > + if (tmp_ctx == NULL) { >> > > + return ENOMEM; >> > > + } >> > > + >> > > + ret = parse_section(tmp_ctx, section, &secdn, NULL); >> > > + if (ret != EOK) { >> > > + goto done; >> > > + } >> > > + >> > > + base = ldb_dn_new(tmp_ctx, cdb->ldb, secdn); >> > > + if (base == NULL) { >> > > + ret = ENOMEM; >> > > + goto done; >> > > + } >> > > + >> > > + base_comp_num = ldb_dn_get_comp_num(base); >> > > + >> > > + ret = ldb_search(cdb->ldb, tmp_ctx, &res, base, LDB_SCOPE_SUBTREE, >> > > + attrs, NULL); >> > > + if (ret != LDB_SUCCESS) { >> > > + ret = EIO; >> > > + goto done; >> > > + } >> > > + >> > > + names = talloc_zero_array(tmp_ctx, char *, res->count + 1); >> > > + if (names == NULL) { >> > > + ret = ENOMEM; >> > > + goto done; >> > > + } >> > > + >> > > + for (num = 0, i = 0; i < res->count; i++) { >> > > + const struct ldb_val *val; >> > > + char *name; >> > > + int n; >> > > + int j; >> > >> > Every time I see variables declared in a scope in C except loop control >> > variables I think "This should be a static function of its own" :-) >> >> Should it be in this case ? </lazy> > >Not sure, I'll make up my mind when I fix the other trivial issues. > > >[...] > >> > > From aa6203a0a6cb1f3ac60428887e77fe176489c3e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > > From: Christian Heimes <chei...@redhat.com> >> > > Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:26:22 +0100 >> > > Subject: [PATCH 08/15] Secrets: m4 macros for jansson and http-parser >> > > >> > > Prepares autoconf for the new Secrets Provider dependencies >> > > >> > > Related: >> > > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2913 >> > > >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > > +PKG_CHECK_MODULES([HTTP_PARSER], [http_parser], >> > > [found_http_parser=yes], [found_http_parser=no]) >> > >> > There is no pkgconfig for http-parser-devel, so it seems to be this line >> > is redundant. >> > >> > Otherwise ACK. >> >> I wonder why this is not failing then ? > >Because we find the library using the next AC_CHECK_LIB call. Again, I >will fixup this locally and send a branch for review later.
We have PKG_CHECK_MODULES and then fallback to AC_CHECK_LIB AC_CHECK_HEADER on many places. It's not a problem from my POV. If we would like to simplify it. We could get rid of fallback detection on many places. And http_parser can provide pkgconfig file in future. I would prefer to be "kind of consistent" in detection. But I do not insist on it. LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
