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 E74C36193D for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:47:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DA2E226E03 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:46:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 209E626D01 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:46:45 +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 DB20044C93 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:46:44 +0100 (CET) To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20201203084309.24838-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <eb5115dc-d63d-b03b-16ec-36c3651d4127@proxmox.com> <27fff7eb-5f72-b466-9409-94dc70b550da@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <792e0100-c62e-2d26-4e8b-369032254e81@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:46:43 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/84.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <27fff7eb-5f72-b466-9409-94dc70b550da@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.074 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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) 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] fix backpu/restore with ipv6/ports for pbs 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: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 09:47:15 -0000 On 03.12.20 10:40, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> >> a=C2=A0few=C2=A0lines=C2=A0below,=C2=A0just=C2=A0out=C2=A0of=C2=A0cont= ext=C2=A0we=C2=A0see=C2=A0the=C2=A0sole=C2=A0use=C2=A0for=C2=A0all=C2=A0t= his=C2=A0extracting: >> >> my=C2=A0$repo=C2=A0=3D=C2=A0"$username\@$server:$datastore"; >> >> So=C2=A0how=C2=A0about=C2=A0adding=C2=A0a=C2=A0get_repo=C2=A0sub=C2=A0= to=C2=A0storage,=C2=A0or=C2=A0the=C2=A0PBSClient=C2=A0in=C2=A0pve-common >> (if=C2=A0we=C2=A0have=C2=A0a=C2=A0documented=C2=A0datastructure=C2=A0l= ike=C2=A0scfg=C2=A0to=C2=A0get=C2=A0the=C2=A0info=C2=A0sanely=C2=A0from).= >=20 > well=C2=A0afaics,=C2=A0we=C2=A0use=C2=A0everywhere=C2=A0the=C2=A0same=C2= =A0section=C2=A0config=C2=A0options > (server,fingerprint,datastore,etc.)=C2=A0except=C2=A0there=C2=A0is=C2=A0= no=C2=A0'port' > setting in pmg (put this code here handles it ok, and we can add it no = problem) > is=C2=A0that=C2=A0enough,=C2=A0or=C2=A0how=C2=A0else=C2=A0would=C2=A0yo= u=C2=A0document=C2=A0it=C2=A0(or=C2=A0make > sure=C2=A0users=C2=A0know=C2=A0what=C2=A0to=C2=A0put=C2=A0in=C2=A0here)= ? >=20 > would=C2=A0a=C2=A0simple=C2=A0comment=C2=A0above=C2=A0the=C2=A0helper=C2= =A0be=C2=A0enough?=C2=A0or=C2=A0should=C2=A0we > try=C2=A0to=C2=A0refactor=C2=A0those=C2=A0section=C2=A0config=C2=A0opti= ons=C2=A0across=C2=A0products? yeah a short comment and maybe the structure of known keys in the $cfg variable should be enough for us - I do not see this changing soon. I did something like that for the pve-storage "scan_datastores" sub: https://git.proxmox.com/?p=3Dpve-storage.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3D8b62ac6a0= ce0d4757ce25082123d18434f5b3a58 >=20 > so=C2=A0i'd=C2=A0simply=C2=A0add=C2=A0a=C2=A0'build_repository'=C2=A0su= b=C2=A0to=C2=A0pve-commons=C2=A0pbsclient=C2=A0module, > and=C2=A0use=C2=A0that=C2=A0everywhere=C2=A0we=C2=A0need=C2=A0that > is=C2=A0that=C2=A0ok? Personally I'd went for "get_repository", build sounds a bit strange to m= e, albeit it is not wrong (this has big bike shedding potential, so no hard feelings from me).