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 84EDE672F3 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:02:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 82F2D13C6C for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:02:57 +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 095C013C60 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:02:57 +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 C9490433FB for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:02:56 +0200 (CEST) To: Dietmar Maurer , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion 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> <1460472930.74.1596094882668@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Stefan Reiter Message-ID: <29878928-248b-afe7-dc49-c2d600bd03ba@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:02:56 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1460472930.74.1596094882668@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.359 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.812 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 08:02:57 -0000 On 7/30/20 9:41 AM, Dietmar Maurer wrote: > >> 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 {:?} - {}", > Yes, and with that the error message reads: "Error: unable to acquire lock on backup group "host/xyz" - EAGAIN: Try again" ...which I think might confuse some users. >> >>>> + 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) >>>> + } >>>> +