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 A8536601E3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 97CB0941A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:09 +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 2F126940D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:09 +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 EA24343725
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:08 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20201109085633.12688-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <a13b7d60-ecff-d424-8b7c-aa183933999c@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:83.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/83.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201109085633.12688-1-f.ebner@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 -0.093 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 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. [vzdump.pm]
Subject: [pve-devel] applied:  [PATCH manager] fix maxfiles behavior
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: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:21:39 -0000

On 09.11.20 09:56, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> Commit 5ba2a605ac14de58572f7b8d6e04b45b34724b0a hard-coded 0 as the default
> for maxfiles in the --storage case, but the actual default should be the
> value from read_vzdump_defaults(), which obtains the value from
> /etc/vzdump.conf or the VZDump schema if the value has not been modified in
> that file. The initial default from the schema is 1, not 0.
> Tested on PVE 6.1 to verify that behavior.
> 
> Move the sanity check for zero-ness to where we have the final value for
> maxfiles. Like this, we also have an implicit definedness check and more
> importantly, it is more future-proof in case we ever allow maxfiles 0 in the
> VZDump schema itself.
> 
> Also, force conversion to int to be extra safe.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> @Stefan: I wasn't able to trigger a warning about using '== 0' on a non-number type,
> the only thing I can get is:
> Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==)
> 
> Does this patch work with your use case as well or is there something off?
> 
>  PVE/VZDump.pm | 14 ++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks! But I really want tests for this after the releases...