Any more samldb or similar patches pending?

[Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer]

I remember that this was the issue:
> @@ -775,7 +777,13 @@ int ltdb_modify_internal(struct ldb_module *module,
>                                    valued attributes or aren't 
> provided twice */
>                                 /* TODO: This is O(n^2) - replace with 
> more efficient check */
>                                 for (j = 0; j < el->num_values; j++) {
> -                                       if (ldb_msg_find_val(el2, 
> &el->values[j]) != NULL) {
> +                                       struct ldb_val *matched_val;
> +                                       ret = 
> ldb_msg_find_val_schema(ldb, a, el2,
> + &el->values[j], &matched_val);
> +                                       if (ret != LDB_SUCCESS) {
> +                                               return ret;
> +                                       }
> +                                       if (matched_val != NULL) {
^^^ we compared "matched_val != &el->values[j]" rather than "!= NULL".

Matthias

Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
> On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 10:00 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> what do you think?
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>> Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer schrieb:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> you could try reviewing my "ldb_schema" branch. I think it should be
>>> working now.
>>>
> It looks good.  What changed since we last had so much trouble with
> this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>