Various problems & fixes

Jeremy Allison jeremy at
Tue Jan 9 18:48:36 GMT 2001

Damian Ivereigh wrote:
> Sure I can take my patch code back out and just make it abort()
> instead. I should be able to
> get that to you in the next few days. We are running Intel X86's with
> a linux system loosely
> based on RedHat 5.2 (i.e. we use the RH RPM's), so glibc etc are what
> you would find on RH5.2

Thanks - that would help. I'm wondering if this is a glibc issue as 
we haven't seen it on other platforms. Then again you tend to test
things to destruction more than other people (as does Ben - troublemakers
the both of you :-) :-).

> Thanks. Actually as I said in a later email. There is a lot of
> optimisation that could be done here. The code looks like it was
> designed to read/write a flat file and then it got converted to using
> tdb.

Exactly correct.

> I don't believe the whole index number thing is even necessary
> (but the code comments seem to disagree). 

I think they are needed for braindamaged Windows reasons but I'll need
to check the code first.

> On another aspect, I have backended much of the tdb records that used
> to be in ntdrivers.tdb in our directory service. To do this I have had
> to put minor changes in various places including
> rpc_server/srv_spoolss_nt.c & printing/nt_printing.c (the former
> mainly for performance). Anyway I am wondering if a little re-org that
> would seperate the processing from the data storage, such that the
> latter could be easily plugged in-and-out. Do you have any thoughts on
> that? Again I am willing to take that on.

Sounds very good to me. Get the patches to me asap so I can
get them into the 2.2.0 release please !



Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list