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 61FAC1FF13F for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2026 11:29:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A1741C8DE; Thu, 26 Mar 2026 11:29:42 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 11:29:38 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox v2 07/40] resource-scheduling: compare by nodename in score_nodes_to_start_resource From: "Dominik Rusovac" To: "Daniel Kral" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260324183029.1274972-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260324183029.1274972-8-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260324183029.1274972-8-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774520930079 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.326 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: NZTBVS2HQQNCHZ6A4VLEUUYFQ6X5LRBC X-Message-ID-Hash: NZTBVS2HQQNCHZ6A4VLEUUYFQ6X5LRBC X-MailFrom: d.rusovac@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 VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: lgtm On Tue Mar 24, 2026 at 7:29 PM CET, Daniel Kral wrote: > Even though comparing by index is slightly faster here, comparing by the > nodename makes factoring this out for an upcoming patch possible. > > This should increase runtime only marginally as this is roughly bound by > the 2 * node_count * maximum_hostname_length. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral > --- > changes v1 -> v2: > - new! [snip]