CTDB: Patch set re-based because of updates

Martin Schwenke martin at meltin.net
Tue Mar 20 05:48:33 UTC 2018

Hi Sven,

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:46:26 +0100, Swen Schillig <swen at vnet.ibm.com>

> On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 11:28 +0100, Swen Schillig wrote:

> > Attached is a patch-set which has received a RB+ from you already.
> > Not sure if you need to re-confirm.
> > 
> > I removed the patches which were in doubt or received a NAK from
> > others
> > or just no RB+ from you.
> > 
> > Therefore all the "good" patches required a re-base which is done
> > with
> > the attached patch-set.
> > 
> > I hope we can process these more easily now...and maybe get a second
> > eye-pair for the final RB.
> > 
> > Thanks again for your support...can't count the beers I owe you by
> > now.

> Updated patch-set...found one-bug.

OK, my apologies for this, given that I've already given a RB+ but...

One of the threads about one of your other patches prompted me to read
the section in README.Coding about function
calls/declarations/definitions (including the recent change).  I
can't remember if I read it before or after the previous RB+.

Some of the cleanups don't meet the all on 1 line or 1 per line
thing... that was new to me too.

Similarly, there's a for loop that's end up like this:

+	for (rev_hdl = ctdb_db->revokechild_active; rev_hdl;
+	     rev_hdl = rev_hdl->next) {

I think that would be clearer if it were 1-per-line.

Sorry for the churn...

peace & happiness,

More information about the samba-technical mailing list