[PATCH] group_mapping: Avoid a talloc

[Jeremy Allison]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:22:42AM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> 
> I can see the argument for stuff in tight inner loops, but I'm very,
> very wary of going back to fixed length strings everywhere.  What's the
> whole argument of talloc_pool() that this was fast enough, without all
> the risks of fixed length strings?
> 
> There is a great value in consistency of talloc-based string handling,
> because it means that we can realistically examine our fixed length
> string use, because it's rare, not used anywhere we might save a cycle
> or two outside the hot path.
> 
> In short, I don't like where I see this headed, and I think we should
> consider that.

I can understand your reluctance on this. I also don't want
to see us going back to fixed-length buffers - that way
lies disaster :-).

But I think you need to trust Volker a little more on
this. Remember, this is something he's spend a *LOT* of
time looking at, and if he thinks we need a fixed length
value somewhere I'm inclined to give him the benefit of
the doubt.

In short, I think you raised a valid concern, but I think
it's time to let Volker push the code now :-).

Cheers,

	Jeremy.