NTSTATUS trick for NTTIME?
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Wed Mar 9 00:36:54 MST 2011
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:12:33PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> I'm not as confident as you that this is a small change however, and
> would like to see the full extent of the patches (or an analysis of it)
> before we agree to the change.
If it was a small change, I would have just put it in. I am
well aware that this is intrusive, that's why I posted the
question on samba-technical first.
It was meant as an incremental approach. I will not be able
to provide a full conversion patchset before this is being
accepted. You might have noticed that I used the typedef to
nt_time_t in my patch proposal to enable co-existence and
That seems unacceptable, so lets better stick with the
current, flaky approach.
> I strongly disagree on this point. We must never again introduce Samba3
> or Samba4 only types, or special coding rules. Any rules we choose to
We have this, and I don't see it go away. See for example
talloc_tos(), something that is not acceptable in Samba4.
See for example nested event loops, something which is not
acceptable in Samba3. We just have different coding styles
and need to find ways to live with it.
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
More information about the samba-technical