Bug 689952
Summary: | Incorrect bit check in replication connection code | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Retired] 389 | Reporter: | Nathan Kinder <nkinder> | ||||
Component: | Replication - General | Assignee: | Nathan Kinder <nkinder> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Viktor Ashirov <vashirov> | ||||
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | 1.2.8 | CC: | rmeggins | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2015-12-07 16:48:12 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 656390, 690319 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Nathan Kinder
2011-03-22 20:45:26 UTC
Created attachment 486894 [details]
Patch for cov#10581
Pushed patch to master. Thanks to Noriko for her review! Counting objects: 13, done. Delta compression using up to 2 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (7/7), done. Writing objects: 100% (7/7), 931 bytes, done. Total 7 (delta 5), reused 0 (delta 0) To ssh://git.fedorahosted.org/git/389/ds.git 09bc822..b41338f master -> master Do we want to get this into 1.2.8? (In reply to comment #3) > Do we want to get this into 1.2.8? I'm not really sure if it's a critical issue or not, as I don't know how common it would be for the PR_POLL_WRITE flag to not be set in this case. Do you think it should go into 1.2.8? I don't think it is critical. It can wait. How can QE verify this bug? Is there a bug that can be reproduced? If not, I say we just mark this as verified by code inspection. (In reply to comment #6) > How can QE verify this bug? Is there a bug that can be reproduced? If not, I > say we just mark this as verified by code inspection. Yes, we should just mark it verified by code inspection. This was found by a Coverity scan. |