Extending LDB for Extended DNs

[simo]

On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:27 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 00:17 -0500, simo wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:14 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > 
> > > The patches have been rebased, and this is the result.  All of the
> > > recent work in that branch represents the patches for this effort
> > > (there
> > > is a reason it has taken me a week)
> > 
> > Sorry I saw various "fix this detail" commits and I thought you didn't.
> > You know you can squash "fix commits" into the original commit when you
> > rebase ?
> 
> I know, and the last time I played with that it took much more time than
> it was worth to get right, so I'm careful about doing it too much.  

Uh? Every time I do that it takes no more than a couple of seconds, just
the time to replace 'pick' with 'squash', what kind of problem have you
encountered in doing this ?

> > I have started reviewing the code, will get back to you when I have
> > formed an opinion.
> 
> Thanks.  I'll keep writing tests, and hope to have this passing against
> the extended 'make test' soon.

One question you can probably answer right away.
Why do you fill the 'extended' parts of the ldb_dn structure by
default ?
It seem to me a waste of resource (you duplicate memory even when
extended and linearized are identical) and time to always fill up all
the 'extended' stuff even when no extended material is present (most
common case for LDB).
Maybe running a dbspeed test with and w/o the patches can tell if I am
too paranoid or if there is an impact to the speed of ldb.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat Inc. <simo at redhat.com>