From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 95034672CF for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:41:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 920991374F for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:41:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 14A3D13743 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:41:59 +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 CECF0433F1 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:41:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:41:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Dietmar Maurer To: Stefan Reiter , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Message-ID: <1460472930.74.1596094882668@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20a222bd-32ff-fa80-d5ef-94779ad98076@proxmox.com> References: <20200729123314.10049-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com> <20200729123314.10049-5-s.reiter@proxmox.com> <1200038958.55.1596088254348@webmail.proxmox.com> <20a222bd-32ff-fa80-d5ef-94779ad98076@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev19 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.078 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 4/5] backup: use flock on backup group to forbid multiple backups at once X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:41:59 -0000 > On 07/30/2020 9:36 AM Stefan Reiter wrote: > > > On 7/30/20 7:50 AM, Dietmar Maurer wrote: > >> + // acquire in non-blocking mode, no point in waiting here since other > >> + // backups could still take a very long time > >> + tools::lock_file(&mut handle, true, Some(Duration::from_nanos(0))) > >> + .map_err(|err| { > >> + match err.downcast_ref::() { > >> + Some(nix::Error::Sys(nix::errno::Errno::EAGAIN)) => { > > > > Honestly, I would remove this special case with downcast - the default error message is good enough. Isn't it? > > > > The original message ends in "EAGAIN - Try again", which to me sounded > like inviting the user to just run the command again, instead of telling > them there's a backup running. The suggestion is too use: "unable to acquire lock on backup group {:?} - {}", > > >> + return format_err!( > >> + "unable to acquire lock on backup group {:?} - another backup is already running", > >> + self.group_path(), > >> + ); > >> + }, > >> + _ => () > >> + } > >> + format_err!( > >> + "unable to acquire lock on backup group {:?} - {}", > >> + self.group_path(), > >> + err, > >> + ) > >> + })?; > >> + > >> + Ok(handle) > >> + } > >> +