[PATCH] LMDB full patch set

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Thu May 3 05:45:53 UTC 2018

On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 17:48 +0200, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> I was also not able to understand if the getpid() based detection for
> the fork case correct. What is the correct way for lmdb to cleanup
> after fork? Is close(fd) in lmdb_pvt_destructor() really the only
> thing? Doesn't lmdb has other state, which we will leak?
> Thanks for your patience, but there's still a bit of work required,
> sorry! But given that will be the core of our AD database careful review
> is required.

Is it correct to say that as long as we have the same behaviour, that
is either allowing transparent (when not locked) use across a fork(),
or denying it for both tdb and mdb, that you are OK with the patches

I'm happy with your squashes in general, except around the tests where
I need to look much more carefully at what is being done there (it was
fairly deliberately constructed, so I need to double-check that).  

This, and the fork() behaviour aside, are you happy with the tree


Andrew Bartlett

> metze
Andrew Bartlett
Authentication Developer, Samba Team         https://samba.org
Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT   

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20180503/fa2d3d27/signature.sig>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list