s4:"samdb_search_count" - introduce a "mem_ctx" parameter
Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer
mdw at samba.org
Tue Oct 26 11:45:30 MDT 2010
sorry I've forgotten to add: if you feel very uncomfortable with this
change I have no problem to revert it.
Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> Ah, sorry,
> didn't know about this rule.
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 19:43 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>>> The branch, master has been updated
>>> via 6fb64b9 s4:"samdb_search_count" - introduce a "mem_ctx"
>>> via fd7943b ldb:gendb_* calls: support a "NULL" resultset
>>> from 8bc2b54 s4-test: Extend DRS-msDSIntId test to verify
>>> Configuration NC replica also
>>> - Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> commit 6fb64b9c7a281c2d148238390fccc08dce962f92
>>> Author: Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer<mdw at samba.org>
>>> Date: Mon Oct 25 18:14:02 2010 +0200
>>> s4:"samdb_search_count" - introduce a "mem_ctx" parameter
>>> All other "samdb_search_*" calls do have one - why
>>> "samdb_search_count" doesn't?
>>> Autobuild-User: Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer<mdw at samba.org>
>>> Autobuild-Date: Mon Oct 25 17:42:33 UTC 2010 on sn-devel-104
>> While I do appreciate your clean-up work, I would encourage you to ask
>> such questions on IRC or the mailing list, rather than just guessing and
>> In this case, the reason there is no mem_ctx parameter is that no memory
>> is returned, and so there is no reason that the caller should supply a
>> memory context.
>> While there are other functions in Samba that take a memory context and
>> do not return memory, that should not be taken as precedent - in fact,
>> these should be tidied up so that they do not return memory. As the
>> behaviour changes can be subtle, I ask that you allow me to review such
>> patches for you.
>> Andrew Bartlett
More information about the samba-technical