From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <c.ebner@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 AD16FEBB7
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 14:26:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 88F1ABEA9
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 14:26:05 +0200 (CEST)
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
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 14:26:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E846448E43
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 14:26:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 14:26:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <761063100.5144.1695817563216@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <dhnjgrbgad7enmejtiguswilid2kdrecixmxecp5xxkvbe3tfv@5i3k7cxjzfvo>
References: <20230922071621.12670-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20230922071621.12670-2-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
<dhnjgrbgad7enmejtiguswilid2kdrecixmxecp5xxkvbe3tfv@5i3k7cxjzfvo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev50
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.097 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
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] [RFC pxar 1/20] fix #3174: encoder: impl fn new for
LinkOffset
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: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 12:26:35 -0000
> On 27.09.2023 14:08 CEST Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 09:16:02AM +0200, Christian Ebner wrote:
> > Allows to generate a new LinkOffset for storing the offset of regular
> > files in the backup catalog, based on the provided archiver position.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > src/encoder/mod.rs | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/encoder/mod.rs b/src/encoder/mod.rs
> > index 0d342ec..710ed98 100644
> > --- a/src/encoder/mod.rs
> > +++ b/src/encoder/mod.rs
> > @@ -31,6 +31,12 @@ pub use sync::Encoder;
> > pub struct LinkOffset(u64);
> >
> > impl LinkOffset {
> > + /// Create a new link from the raw byte offset.
> > + #[inline]
> > + pub fn new(raw: u64) -> Self {
>
> Not very happy about that. It was meant to be an opaque type that you
> can't just create easily.
> But oh well... if we need it...
> Better than using u64 directly.
Might it be worth to create dedicated types or enums for the different offsets
needed? I do need some way to hande the different offsets and this just seemed
better than some raw u64, in order to have at least some type checking.
>
> > + Self(raw)
> > + }
> > +
> > /// Get the raw byte offset of this link.
> > #[inline]
> > pub fn raw(self) -> u64 {
> > --
> > 2.39.2