Commit: 1169dd3b50dfefa59b56cd1897bcd0b6c2ffb3be

[Crístian Viana]

does the attached patch fix the problem? I'm not very familiar with talloc
memory stealing yet.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:37 AM, <tridge at samba.org> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>  > Yes, I think it should be ldb_msg_add_linearized_dn().  That would match
>  > the current nomenclature of the ldb_dn.c code, and not add an extended
>  > DN (which is another, quite valid DN form).
>
> yep, you're right.
>
>  > Perhaps just use ldb_msg_add_steal_string() and
>  > ldb_dn_alloc_linearized()?
>
> good suggestion.
>
> Cheers, Tridge
>



-- 
Crístian Deives dos Santos Viana [aka CD1]
Sent from Campinas, SP, Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-changed-function-name-and-fixed-memory-issue.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3846 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20091123/39ce9fb3/attachment.obj>