<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/06/15 11:05, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:55813843.5050100@redhat.com" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/17/2015 10:35 AM, thierry bordaz wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:5581316A.1020608@redhat.com" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/17/2015 09:25 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:558120D1.2010700@redhat.com" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> Hi, thanks for review, see answers inline. <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/16/2015 05:17 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/16/2015 11:41 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: </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 <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> </blockquote> This is looking good to me with few comments <ul> <li>in ipa_topo_cfg_replica_segment_find, if 'dir=0' or 'dir=bidirectionnal' the reverse direction is bidirectionnal. Is it the expected result ?</li> </ul> </blockquote> 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. <blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite"> <ul> <li> 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).</li> </ul> </blockquote> 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. </blockquote> Hi Ludwig, thanks for your explanations. All of them makes sense and so for me the patch is valid. I have a minor question about schema violation. When we add an entry, in preop we did not yet check the schema. So ipa_topo_pre_add->ipa_topo_check_segment_is_valid may be called with an invalid segment entry where some attributes are missing (like ipaReplTopoSegmentDirection). </blockquote> good point, in preop we cannot rely on schema been checked, need to add a check. <blockquote cite="mid:5581316A.1020608@redhat.com" type="cite"> Also something that is not clear to. I have a segment seg=ipa_topo_cfg_replica_segment_find(.., A, B, SEGMENT_RIGHT_LEFT, ..);. my understanding is that seg->right != 0 and seg->left == 0. is that correct ? </blockquote> no :-) one directional segments are a bit confusing. a replication agreement B-->A can be represented by a segment (A,B,right-left) or (B,A,left-right). when doing segment_find (A,B,right-left) we are looking if any segment covers this and teh result could be a segment (B,A,left right with seg->left !=0 <blockquote cite="mid:5581316A.1020608@redhat.com" type="cite"> thanks thierry <blockquote cite="mid:558120D1.2010700@redhat.com" type="cite"> <blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite"> <ul> <li>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.</li> </ul> </blockquote> 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. <blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite"> <ul> <li>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 ? </li> </ul> </blockquote> no, we don't know if it is a right-left segment. 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. <blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite"> <ul> <li> </li> <li>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 ?</li> </ul> </blockquote> if it is bidirectional check_reverse is set to 0 and reveres is not attempted <blockquote cite="mid:55803DFF.7040805@redhat.com" type="cite"> <ul> </ul> Thanks thierry </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> </blockquote> Hello, what is status of this patch? Also there are 2 whitespace errors. Ludwig's PATCH 15 depends on this patch, would be nice to have this acked, to unblock review. Martin^2 <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Martin Basti</pre> </body> </html>