From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16DFB1FF143 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2026 11:03:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E88F7360; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:03:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <6019530d-0780-4aca-862b-4046aa8861c0@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:03:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Christian Ebner Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 proxmox-backup 02/16] datastore: remove Arc from DynamicIndexWriter To: Robert Obkircher , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260130164552.281581-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> <20260130164552.281581-3-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE In-Reply-To: <20260130164552.281581-3-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1770026509047 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.048 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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: 3VYRNBWMDVJXQKF5QMGIWZKRCXQXJUD6 X-Message-ID-Hash: 3VYRNBWMDVJXQKF5QMGIWZKRCXQXJUD6 X-MailFrom: c.ebner@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 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: On 1/30/26 5:46 PM, Robert Obkircher wrote: > Remain consistent with the FixedIndexWriter and make it easier to add > tests in the future. > > Signed-off-by: Robert Obkircher > --- Changes look good to me and also this patch might be applied already. Only thing which could be improved a bit if a new version is being send anyways is to explicitly mention the same rational as on the previous patch (making it easier to understand the change when looking at the commit history in the future). Consider: Reviewed-by: Christian Ebner