From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <c.ebner@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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E856BB9755
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CE1D9E21C
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:43 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:42 +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 8DA86489D9
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:42 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1e1eec22-99d8-45b2-a70e-28dad0850faa@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
To: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240305092703.126906-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20240305092703.126906-26-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <105589548.11753.1710323013727@webmail.proxmox.com>
From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <105589548.11753.1710323013727@webmail.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.038 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: [pbs-devel] [RFC v2 proxmox-backup 25/36] upload stream: impl
 reused chunk injector
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:03:44 -0000

On 3/13/24 10:43, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
>  From a high level Perspective, this looks a
> bit too complicated. Cant we simply drop the current chunker
> when  we want to force a chunk-boundary, and start a new one
> after the injected chunks later?

Looking at this in more detail I am not sure what exactly would
be the benefit of dropping the chunker instance, since the
boundary has to be found in the byte stream buffer anyways
and since we do not actually know the BytesMut for the
reused chunks to be returned by the poll, the queues to
pass the ReusableDynamicEntries and the boundary where in
the BackupWriter upload stream they are required nevertheless
(see also patch 26 for the chunking itself).