From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.schauer@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 8AB279428C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 685731A1B1
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:10 +0100 (CET)
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
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:09 +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 925774451A
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <f72c133b-bd08-4095-8ced-fdccbb247db1@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20231219094023.25726-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
<20231219094023.25726-2-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
<848a06d3-a136-482b-9fa4-07971c956a55@proxmox.com>
From: Filip Schauer <f.schauer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <848a06d3-a136-482b-9fa4-07971c956a55@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.108 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 1/1] tools: Add is_native sub to
compare the CPU architecture
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: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:37:40 -0000
Patch v8 available:
https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-February/061899.html
On 19/02/2024 15:46, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 19.12.23 um 10:40 schrieb Filip Schauer:
>> Add an is_native($arch) subroutine to compare a CPU architecture to the
>> host CPU architecture. This is brought in from PVE::QemuServer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Filip Schauer <f.schauer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> src/PVE/Tools.pm | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/Tools.pm b/src/PVE/Tools.pm
>> index 766c809..7bb1809 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/Tools.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/Tools.pm
>> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ extract_param
>> extract_sensitive_params
>> file_copy
>> get_host_arch
>> +is_native
>> O_PATH
>> O_TMPFILE
>> AT_EMPTY_PATH
>> @@ -1841,6 +1842,11 @@ sub get_host_arch {
>> return $host_arch;
>> }
>>
>> +sub is_native($) {
> This is a too generic name to put in such a generic module like Tools.
> Admittedly, it's also a too generic name in QemuServer IMHO ;) Maybe
> arch_is_native() or is_native_arch()?
>
> I'm not fully convinced the move is worth it, but it does belong to
> get_host_arch() semantically, so fine by me.
>
>> + my ($arch) = @_;
>> + return get_host_arch() eq $arch;
>> +}
>> +
>> # Devices are: [ (12 bits minor) (12 bits major) (8 bits minor) ]
>> sub dev_t_major($) {
>> my ($dev_t) = @_;