RFC: dbwrap_ctdb and empty vs deleted records

[Volker Lendecke]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 03:14:02PM +0200, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 01:43:00PM +0200, Ralph Boehme wrote:
> > I *think* my patch might be a proper fix without the risk of a
> > deadlock, because it *won't* call out to ctdb but return ENOENT (im
> > terms of NTSTATUS).
> > 
> > I'd highly appreciate some feedback. In case we don't want to take the
> > risk of this change, I'll prepare a patch for parse_share_modes() and
> > callers.
> 
> *ping*

I like your patch. Samba can live without empty records, and your patch
solves this really bad problem. However, and I don't want to block it just
for that, reading 925625b52886d40b50fc's commit message this deadlock
came as a bad surprise. Do we have sufficient information to reproduce
that deadlock, just to make sure with your patch this does not happen?

Volker