From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 B59A364B78 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:25:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9D2EB2CE6 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:25:23 +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 C8F5E2CD9 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:25:21 +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 D577841CC4 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:25:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <41faad7c-490f-0ba4-21b7-ea29cb6b79d9@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:25:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/98.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20211029111624.142116-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20211029111624.142116-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20211029111624.142116-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.059 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 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC v2 container 1/1] print_ct_warn_log: use log_warn function from RESTEnvironment X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 10:25:53 -0000 On 29/10/2021 13:16, Fabian Ebner wrote: > No functional change is intended. > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> > --- > > No changes from v1. > > Dependency bump for pve-common is needed. not any more though, or at least never for the other patch in this series? As you do not import the symbol here locally anyway, but always use the full module path.. > + PVE::RESTEnvironment::log_warn($1);