Re: When must slap_callback.sc_writewait be set?

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

Hallvard Breien Furuseth wrote:
> Howard Chu wrote:
> > Hallvard Breien Furuseth wrote:
> > > When is it safe to leave sc_writewait uninitialized?  The field
> > > seems to have emerged in the middle of RE24, and I don't see any
> > > flags which say it should/should not be used.
> >
> > Where would such flags reside?
>
> slap_callback.sc_flags.  If it existed it could get a "the sc_writewait
> field is valid" bit.  Then the struct could have been safely extended
> without breaking other modules - provided they were recompiled, anyway.
>
> > > Since not setting it crashed back-relay in ITS#8428, does that
> > > mean everything which creates a slap_callback should set it?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Then most callback code in slapd must be fixed.  Now I don't understand
> why slapd still works as well as it does...

Because most callback users do a default initialization, e.g.
slap_callback cb = { xx };

back-relay was odd in this respect.

--
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/