<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi,<br>
thanks for review, see answers inline.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/16/2015 05:17 PM, thierry bordaz
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/16/2015 11:41 AM, Ludwig
Krispenz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:557FEF38.9000700@redhat.com" type="cite">this
patch adresses issues in checking existing segments for one
directional segments and correctly handles the merging of
segments, so that all agreements will be removed when the merged
segment is deleted <br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This is looking good to
me with few comments<br>
<br>
</font>
<ul>
<li><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">in
ipa_topo_cfg_replica_segment_find, if 'dir=0' or
'dir=bidirectionnal' the reverse direction is
bidirectionnal. Is it the expected result ?</font></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">yes. 0 does not exist as
valid direct and if we are looking for (A,B,both) this could als
be expressed as (B,A,both). we do not really look for a opposite
direction of (A,B,dir) but for a segment (B,A,revdir) which covers
this segment.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite">
<ul>
<li><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> in
ipa_topo_check_segment_is_valid and
ipa_topo_util_find_segment, may be hardening
leftnode,rightnode,dir if they are NULL. (if the entry
violate schema).</font></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">if we can arrive at a
state where an entry violates the schema I think we have more
trouble, I want to avoid adding code for handling errors which
cannot exist.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite">
<ul>
<li><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ipa_topo_util_segm_dir
if direction does not match any of the strings, it returns
-1. 0 would be better if we decide to test bit mask.</font></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">yes, but in preop we
check that only valid directions are added, so it might be
unnecesarry to handle it, but if you want I can change it.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite">
<ul>
<li><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">in
ipa_topo_util_segment_update:810, ex_segm is a rigth_left
segment. Why trying to call ipa_topo_cfg_agmt_dup with
ex_segm->left in priority. Why not ex_segm->right
first ? <br>
</font></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">no, we don't know if it
is a right-left segment. </font>we have (A,B,left-right), the
segment for the other direction could be (A.B,right-left) or
(B,A,left-right). All we know is that it is not bidirectional,
otherwise (A,B,left-right) would have been rejected in the preop
test. So there is one agmt, left or right and take the existing one.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite">
<ul>
<li><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font><br>
</li>
<li><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">in
ipa_topo_util_delete_segments_for_host, If segment
localhost->delhost is bidirectional, how can it exists a
reverse segment delhost->localhost ? I thought those
segments have been merged ?</font></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">if it is bidirectional
check_reverse is set to 0 and reveres is not attempted</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite">
<ul>
</ul>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Thanks<br>
thierry </font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>