ldb error codes

Stefan Metzmacher metze at samba.org
Mon Oct 31 07:37:26 GMT 2005

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 11:58:20AM +1100, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> So I have a few possible proposals for fixing this:
>  1) change the sign of the LDB_ERR* values, and make all functions
>     then return a ldb error value. For ldb_search() if the value is >=
>     0 then its a search count, if its < 0 then its an error code. Not
>     pretty, but requires very little code modification.

enum's can't take negative values on AIX, so we would need to fallback
to defines, and gdb won't display the error names...

>  2) change ldb_search() to only return a error code, and add a
>     ldb_count_messages() function. This requires changing all existing
>     calls to ldb_search(). We'd also have to ensure that all backends
>     NULL terminate the result list, as otherwise ldb_count_messages()
>     would not be possible to implemenet.

I don't really like this, as we need to calculate the message count twice,
and when we have 1000 messages it would be 1000 cpu cycles in the for()-loop
per request, I think we should avoid this, even when modern hardware should be fast for this.

>  3) we could have a ldb_errorcode() function that returns the last
>     error code.

I think that would be the easiest solution, and I would like to use it.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list