From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A92F652C6
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:13:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4D6CE2E522
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:13:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B22822E517
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:13:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 80A524617E;
Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:13:57 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <10964093-6e3e-363c-e2d0-f30b25c20ac2@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:13:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/97.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220117104825.2409598-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20220117104825.2409598-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<c95f9918-b33c-5c37-92b1-d183713c0d5e@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <c95f9918-b33c-5c37-92b1-d183713c0d5e@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.163 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [mod.rs]
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox v4 3/4] proxmox-async: add
connect_to_udp helper
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 12:13:58 -0000
On 2/1/22 13:02, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> A overly "sensitive" review due to getting a new public method, which is
> always more work to change.
>
>
> On 17.01.22 11:48, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> so that we do not have to always check the target ipaddr family manually
>
> nit: above is slightly to long for our commit message style guide
>
>> index 9a6d8a6..2dd49d4 100644
>> --- a/proxmox-async/src/io/mod.rs
>> +++ b/proxmox-async/src/io/mod.rs
>> @@ -2,3 +2,6 @@
>>
>> mod async_channel_writer;
>> pub use async_channel_writer::AsyncChannelWriter;
>> +
>> +mod udp_connect;
>
> nit: why not just udp? I mean, it's private so we can change any time without
> breaking much, but feel still a bit to narrow/specialized - not really hard
> feelings though.
>
>> +pub use udp_connect::connect_to_udp;
>> diff --git a/proxmox-async/src/io/udp_connect.rs b/proxmox-async/src/io/udp_connect.rs
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..878b150
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/proxmox-async/src/io/udp_connect.rs
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +use std::io;
>> +use std::net::SocketAddr;
>> +
>> +use tokio::net::{ToSocketAddrs, UdpSocket};
>> +
>> +/// Helper to connect to UDP addresses without having to manually bind to the correct ip address
>> +pub async fn connect_to_udp<A: ToSocketAddrs + std::fmt::Display>(
>
> name is a bit weird, as one cannot connect to a UDP, maybe dropping the `to`,
> i.e., `udp_connect`, would be already fine?
>
> One alternative could be to make this module `pub mod udp` and name the helper
> either just `connect` or `connect_to`, just throwing out the idea here, not
> much preference.
yes, udp::connect() does look better & cleaner
>
>> + addr: A,
>> +) -> io::Result<UdpSocket> {
>> + let socket = match tokio::net::lookup_host(&addr).await?.next() {> + Some(SocketAddr::V4(_)) => UdpSocket::bind("0.0.0.0:0").await?,
>> + Some(SocketAddr::V6(_)) => UdpSocket::bind("[::]:0").await?,
>> + None => proxmox_sys::io_bail!("could not resolve address family {}", addr),
>
> would it have some merit to use {:?} to loose the Display trait bound?
> Probably not to relevant though.
>
then we'd need the Debug trait though, so no real gain?