From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13F6777EF9
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:39:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 059BC1A85C
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:39:31 +0200 (CEST)
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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 602761A84D
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:39:30 +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 3168E45BD3
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:39:30 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
References: <20210422140213.30989-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
 <20210422140213.30989-14-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <716b07de-763b-a41a-4384-38a3e41c219c@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:39:29 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210422140213.30989-14-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.312 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           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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 v2 backup 13/27] add node config
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, 29 Apr 2021 10:39:31 -0000

Using different naming styles for lock files is really bad. Instead, we 
should use
the same style consistently. I suggest:

const CONF_FILE: &str = configdir!("/node.cfg");
const LOCK_FILE: &str = configdir!("/.node.lck");

Any objections?

You already use this style for ACME plugins:

pub const ACME_PLUGIN_CFG_FILENAME: &str = 
"/etc/proxmox-backup/acme/plugins.cfg";
pub const ACME_PLUGIN_CFG_LOCKFILE: &str = 
"/etc/proxmox-backup/acme/.plugins.lck";


> +
> +const CONF_FILE: &str = configdir!("/node.cfg");
> +const LOCK_FILE: &str = configdir!("/.node.cfg.lock");
> +const LOCK_TIMEOUT: Duration = Duration::from_secs(5);