[PATCH] Make loadparm more common

[Michael Adam]

Another thought:

On 2014-04-02 at 11:43 +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 08:43 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > 
> > This has a talloc_zero(NULL,...). Would it be possible to
> > use talloc_tos() here?
> 
> No, I'm not willing to add any more talloc_tos() to this area of the
> code.  Almost all the odd unexpected failures caused by this patch set
> were due to new talloc_tos() calls, because not all callers had a
> talloc_stackframe().  
> 
> Additionally, it would have to be un-done again before the code is made
> common later in the series, and we don't use talloc_tos() in the top
> level code. 

I don't quite get that: talloc_tos() is from lib/ and several
top-level subsystems already use it, why couldn't this code use
it as well?

I'd say, for a samba-interal top-level lib/subsystem, we should
use the talloc stack. But I may be missing an important point.

Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 215 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20140402/c69ccc42/attachment.pgp>