From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B1B71FF13F for ; Thu, 07 May 2026 11:19:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6AD191102C; Thu, 7 May 2026 11:19:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 11:19:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 1/2] zfs: status: add `VDevStats` struct instead of 3 optional u64s To: Nicolas Frey , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260505141606.438908-1-n.frey@proxmox.com> <20260505141606.438908-2-n.frey@proxmox.com> <1778140433.30e1wc8usw.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778145480314 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.003 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: FL22N4LL6XJF5VYR2UEBR4UGSYRUBEXW X-Message-ID-Hash: FL22N4LL6XJF5VYR2UEBR4UGSYRUBEXW X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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: Am 07.05.26 um 11:14 schrieb Nicolas Frey: >> so if we do it, we should also do it there - if we want to avoid that >> churn, we need to keep the actual members separate. >> > Ah thanks! I was unaware that this code was duplicated to > proxmox-disks. I reckon the place to fix the parsing would rather be > there then? Or should it be fixed on both sides, until PBS uses > proxmox-disks? > > I don't believe we gain much from pulling this out into a separate > struct here after thinking about it (especially with what you > mentioned here), I'll drop it in the next version I owe moving it out of PBS and replacing it with the refactored out proxmox-disks one. FWIW, the latter currently has not really that many (any?) users (i.e., in a bumped package), so now we could still break this without _that_ much pain, FWIW.