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 7EC856277D
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:55:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7373519DE1
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:55:59 +0200 (CEST)
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 04FCC19DD4
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:55:59 +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 BC80D45A26
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:55:58 +0200 (CEST)
To: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20200930132522.22927-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
 <20200930132522.22927-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
 <102da918-162c-fcf4-f1e7-68b46b63f953@proxmox.com>
 <b18f71e0-004b-0e10-6af9-27fe80cbf9ac@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <81232073-876f-1ae5-4cdb-bfcc6ac1c5ed@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:55:57 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:82.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/82.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b18f71e0-004b-0e10-6af9-27fe80cbf9ac@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.162 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
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/5] backup: don't validate
 chunk existance if base was recently verified
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, 30 Sep 2020 13:55:59 -0000

On 30.09.20 15:42, Stefan Reiter wrote:
> On 9/30/20 3:32 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> on another note: we should probably add some helper for getting the
>> verify state
>>
> 
> I'll see if it's feasible. So far we only have two sites that both do different things on individual errors, so I'm not sure how much that would simplify things.
> 

Hasn't to be now, just had a feeling I saw (and/or wrote) this already
a few times.

More important may be to make the unprotected part of the manifest safer
for parallel read/write access (RW lock?).