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 CC1031FF143 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2026 13:32:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C721B4528; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 13:32:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 13:32:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 proxmox-backup 11/16] datastore: combine public FixedIndexWriter methods into add_chunk. To: Robert Obkircher , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260130164552.281581-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> <20260130164552.281581-12-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260130164552.281581-12-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: 1770035468863 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: GHAITDL7RX773DXDPM6AXFELOVOTL6OJ X-Message-ID-Hash: GHAITDL7RX773DXDPM6AXFELOVOTL6OJ 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: > These operations were always performed together anyway, so it makes > sense to simplify the public api. > > Signed-off-by: Robert Obkircher > --- as stated in the last review, IMO bundling the alignment check and add_digest() into add_chunk() should be done in a preparatory patch upfront, before introducing grow_to_size().