Patches for https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11182
jra at samba.org
Wed May 6 13:37:08 MDT 2015
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 09:29:00PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> It's all well. I just needed to say it. ;)
> Metze's argument (I briefly discussed with him) is that
> it was this way before. And since only the last in a
Oh, it's certainly better than it was before.
> compound (except for oplock breaking create) can go async
> and is taken out of the compound then, we are not in danger.
> But the concern is this: doesn't the introduction of the
> Queue introduce a new potential for blocking (by prevent
> the session from being freed waiting for the notify to disappear)?
> (Which is arguably still better than crashing because
> of use after free... :)
Yep. Not crashing is always better :-).
Let me think about the queuing and compound issue.
I've been working on this a while, just need to
load this context back into my head.
> Ah it's in AB already - ok.
> Will propose the refactoring again on top.
> The commit msg fixes are not that important.
Not so much for master - we should add the
Bug: tags in the back-port.
More information about the samba-technical