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 8D8C41FF143 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2026 13:48:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1CD364DF7; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 13:49:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 13:48:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 proxmox-backup 12/16] datastore: use u64 instead of usize for fidx writer content size To: Robert Obkircher , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260130164552.281581-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> <20260130164552.281581-13-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260130164552.281581-13-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1770036463212 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.048 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: TOUEJLU4OKBBFRSMKFSRNU3AG5CVODUH X-Message-ID-Hash: TOUEJLU4OKBBFRSMKFSRNU3AG5CVODUH X-MailFrom: c.ebner@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 Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 1/30/26 5:46 PM, Robert Obkircher wrote: > The file format is independent of the systems pointer size, so it > makes sense to use a fixed size type. > > The chunk size is also a u64 to avoid casts and because that is what > is stored in the header anyway. Most other places limit it to u32, but > widening shouldn't be an issue. > > Signed-off-by: Robert Obkircher > --- Would like to hear other dev's opinions on this one and the latter patches of the series touching the size type. Not sure what the best way forward is here.