Bug 8257 - smbd:backgroundqueue is undocumented
Summary: smbd:backgroundqueue is undocumented
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Samba 3.6
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Printing (show other bugs)
Version: 3.6.0
Hardware: All All
: P5 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Simo Sorce
QA Contact: Samba QA Contact
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-06-23 11:26 UTC by Björn Jacke
Modified: 2018-01-11 09:52 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Björn Jacke 2011-06-23 11:26:21 UTC 
smbd:backgroundqueue is undocumented
Comment 1 Andreas Schneider 2011-08-30 11:33:03 UTC 
Simo, could you please add documentation for the smbd:backgroundqueue variable you added.
Comment 2 Andreas Schneider 2012-02-08 12:03:33 UTC 
Ping!
Comment 3 Björn Jacke 2012-09-12 21:59:05 UTC 
Simo, can you give a description of that parameter please? You added the feature, you know the background and the details of it ...
Comment 4 Simo Sorce 2012-10-02 19:07:48 UTC 
I checked the history of that parameter, and it was introduced by Metze (commit b7a141f8a7) as a port from the v3-0-ctdb tree.

I am not sure who introduced it there, but I guess whoever introduced it should perhaps document it ? I have genral background on what it means, but no idea why it was introduced as a parametric option as opposed to a normal parm.
Comment 5 Andreas Schneider 2012-10-04 13:24:35 UTC 
This parameter controls whether or not a separate daemon is used to refresh the printer queues status in the background.
Comment 6 Björn Jacke 2018-01-11 09:52:43 UTC 
We have a parameter where nobody feels responsible for and nobody(?) knows what to write useful for a documentation description.

the only place I've ever seen this parameter being set is in ctdb/tests/eventscripts/etc/samba/smb.conf

It's rediculous that nobody knows what this parameter is for and not even in the code there is a comment about why it's there at all. I suggest removing the parameter then, when obviously it's there for no reason.