From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.sterz@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 6AA2D71BDA
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5B696252DB
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (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 E7A9E252CF
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B574642FAB
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:20 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <eb8253a8-c05a-cebd-c1fb-e1d8f007b4ee@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:20 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20220610081325.96912-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
 <20220610085256.2vzgftzhkazoy2np@wobu-vie.proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220610085256.2vzgftzhkazoy2np@wobu-vie.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.825 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.732 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix: config: remove
 duplicate privilege lookup in cached_user_info
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:00:57 -0000

On 6/10/22 10:52, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> Any reason for the "fix: " prefix in the commit message, though? This
> just seems to remove something redundant and not actually fix an issue?
> Or am I missing something?
> 
> Code-wise it seems fine, so I'd apply it, but I'd drop the 'fix' prefix?
> 

i can see your point in that this technically doesn't fix a bug. you
can remove it.

my reasoning was that it removes a performance loss (albeit a rather
minor one) and also potential confusion when reviewing this code in
the future. it tripped me up when i looked at it. at the very least it
makes the code here more concise.

-- snip --