Reduce duplicate symbols, merge server_id

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 12:57 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:13:15PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 06:06:51PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > What I'm confused about is how this will interact with serverid.tdb.  I
> > > my proposal to use id2, it was clear that this combines with pid and vnn
> > > to form the lookup key and retrieves a unique_id.  How should this code
> > > work if there are multiple unique_id values for a given (pid, vnn)
> > > tuple?
> > 
> > The question is what we want to optimize for. If we want to
> > optimize for the standard model, we could change
> > serverid.tdb to have a list of unique_ids hosted by that
> > process, expecting that list to be short. If want to
> > optimize for the single process model, we need to key off a
> > separate in-process id. Given that, you're right that we
> > might need a separate ID in struct server_id. The classical
> > time vs space tradeoff.
> 
> Expanding further on your question on irc whether this is
> really a hot code path: Yes, it is. On every read and write
> request to properly implement mandatory locking we need to
> validate the brl entries that are around. It does involve
> syscalls, so the relative cost of increasing that structure
> might be negligible, but it is in the one hot code path we
> have.

Jeremy,

Can you look at
http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=abartlet/samba.git/.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/merge-server_id

Volker asked that I ask you to look over this, and I think this is a
small logical change, most in keeping with the existing structure and
use.   

We can't do this with an #ifdef because we are combining headers and
libraries now, and a rename just puts the problem off until later (we
certainly will need a common server id eventually).

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org