On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 06:08:24PM -0400, Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote:
On 23 Mar 2015, at 17:51, Matthew Newton <mcn4@LEICESTER.AC.UK> wrote:
Thinking about it more, and checking the code, yes I'm wrong. Just not sure why I even thought that in the first place. Been staring at this for too long I guess.
I'll add a connection pool to the mschap winbind code so it doesn't have threading issues... as always annoying the issues only show up under load, not in normal testing.
I was wondering about that...
I figured you'd done some TLS magic in the samba patches, but I guess not :)
I did originally, but the code wasn't great; there were cases where the library could be dlclose'd and threads still have data structures around that wouldn't have called their destructors... yet. This is the correct version.
Yes, you'll need a connection pool.
There's no per module/thread instantiators or destructors.
Feeling rather silly - if asked this I would have told anyone that, but for some reason it didn't come to mind. Oh well. Thread pool is trivial and about 70% done now.
It's also the reason why you never parent memory allocated when processing a request, from the context of the module instance.
Yup, that makes sense. Thanks for rebooting my sanity... Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <mcn4@le.ac.uk> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ithelp@le.ac.uk>