From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F00531FF0A7 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2026 18:17:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AAA592158F; Wed, 02 Sep 2026 18:17:21 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 03/10] tape: move tape block structs into separate file module From: Robert Obkircher To: "Max R. Carrara" In-Reply-To: <20260821140238.615302-4-m.carrara@proxmox.com> References: <20260821140238.615302-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20260821140238.615302-4-m.carrara@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 18:17:14 +0200 Message-Id: <178836583425.294173.13392589512957146007.b4-review@b4> X-Mailer: b4 0.16-dev X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1788365833733 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.631 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 6ZJNX7QHZXGCU5LVQKW6BSIX2YAHQLBM X-Message-ID-Hash: 6ZJNX7QHZXGCU5LVQKW6BSIX2YAHQLBM X-MailFrom: r.obkircher@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > ... since a tape block does not really represent a plain buffer. > > Also rename any private functions mentioning `buffer` along the way. nit: imo the word buffer immediately makes it clear that the field will be used to temporarily store data while it is transfered. The generic repeated type name could be something else, like a specific block at the start. -- Robert Obkircher