From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 2BAD960828
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:04:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 231BE12C67
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:04:05 +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 1B60412C57
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:04:04 +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 D13D945511;
 Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:04:03 +0200 (CEST)
To: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20200924135226.30186-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <b15afe05-9a85-6ff7-1f6f-482330fff275@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <86c520ad-9b1d-1ab4-8b1f-0a8e38a2a6c8@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:04:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:81.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/81.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b15afe05-9a85-6ff7-1f6f-482330fff275@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.517 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 1/2] proxy: fix error
 handling in prune scheduling
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: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 14:04:05 -0000

On 9/24/20 4:01 PM, Stefan Reiter wrote:
> Don't we also have the proxmox::try_block! macro? What's the difference 
> to that then?


ah yes, you're right. i missed that this exists^^
i'll send a v2 for both patches using the try_block! macro