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 7CE386117E for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:39:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7AD5F21BBF for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:39:04 +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 DB77A21BB0 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:39:02 +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 A91DA44A27 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:39:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:38:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Dietmar Maurer To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Dominik Csapak Message-ID: <1525074633.752.1599226699968@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20200904123334.3731-8-d.csapak@proxmox.com> References: <20200904123334.3731-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20200904123334.3731-8-d.csapak@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-Rev21 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.103 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com, time.rs] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 07/11] tools/systemd/time: fix selection for multiple options 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: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 13:39:04 -0000 already applied, but I wonder if we have a test case for this? > On 09/04/2020 2:33 PM Dominik Csapak wrote: > > > if we give multiple options/ranges for a value, e.g. > 2,4,8 > we always choose the biggest, instead of the smallest that is next > > this happens because in DateTimeValue::find_next(value) > 'next' can be set multiple times and we set it when the new > value was *bigger* than the last found 'next' value, when in reality > we have to choose the *smallest* next we can find > > reverse the comparison operator to fix this > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > src/tools/systemd/time.rs | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/tools/systemd/time.rs b/src/tools/systemd/time.rs > index c8cc8468..69f5f5fb 100644 > --- a/src/tools/systemd/time.rs > +++ b/src/tools/systemd/time.rs > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ impl DateTimeValue { > let mut next: Option = None; > let mut set_next = |v: u32| { > if let Some(n) = next { > - if v > n { next = Some(v); } > + if v < n { next = Some(v); } > } else { > next = Some(v); > } > -- > 2.20.1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs-devel mailing list > pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel