From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B442E1FF0AA for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2026 13:44:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DA81C215B2; Mon, 07 Sep 2026 13:44:44 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 13:44:40 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Max R. Carrara" Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 03/10] tape: move tape block structs into separate file module To: "Robert Obkircher" X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2-0-ge037c095a049 References: <20260821140238.615302-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20260821140238.615302-4-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <178836583425.294173.13392589512957146007.b4-review@b4> In-Reply-To: <178836583425.294173.13392589512957146007.b4-review@b4> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1788781473646 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.614 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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 Message-ID-Hash: CSOELQ47IC7WGHE2WBRX2B4S435C3F4C X-Message-ID-Hash: CSOELQ47IC7WGHE2WBRX2B4S435C3F4C X-MailFrom: m.carrara@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 CC: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed Sep 2, 2026 at 6:17 PM CEST, Robert Obkircher wrote: > > ... since a tape block does not really represent a plain buffer. > > > > Also rename any private functions mentioning `buffer` along the way. > > nit: imo the word buffer immediately makes it clear that the field will > be used to temporarily store data while it is transfered. The generic > repeated type name could be something else, like a specific block at > the start. Eh, I feel like buffer is way too generic in this case, so I think I'll just keep it as it is, or maybe use `buffered_block` or something like that.