| Summary: | Make userdb cache as a built-in feature, non-optional | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | dbus | Reporter: | Chengwei Yang <chengwei.yang.cn> |
| Component: | core | Assignee: | Havoc Pennington <hp> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | trivial | ||
| Priority: | low | CC: | chengwei.yang.cn |
| Version: | 1.5 | Keywords: | patch |
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | review? | ||
| i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||
| Attachments: | [PATCH] Make userdb cache as a built-in feature | ||
|
Description
Chengwei Yang
2013-07-16 05:10:48 UTC
I think there's a wider question here. Why would you disable the userdb cache? What do you gain by doing so? Why is it even an option? The no-userdb-cache code path is clearly not well-tested (Bug #15589, Bug #17133) so I'm very tempted to say "it is not optional". On Bug #15589, Havoc wrote: > I'm pretty sure the bus is outrageously slow with this disabled, > too (at least if you have any policy rules based on group membership) (In reply to comment #1) > I think there's a wider question here. Why would you disable the userdb > cache? What do you gain by doing so? Why is it even an option? I have no special use case for disable userdb case, just because it's a configurable option from user point of view. It's also fine to me just make it as a mandatory feature. Is that acceptable? > > The no-userdb-cache code path is clearly not well-tested (Bug #15589, Bug > #17133) so I'm very tempted to say "it is not optional". > > On Bug #15589, Havoc wrote: > > I'm pretty sure the bus is outrageously slow with this disabled, > > too (at least if you have any policy rules based on group membership) Created attachment 85174 [details] [review] [PATCH] Make userdb cache as a built-in feature Merged, thanks! 1.7.6 |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.