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 F3F03B8DD3 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:42:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D4D21CB9B for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:41:49 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:41:49 +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 2288D48902 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:41:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:41:48 +0100 (CET) From: Christian Ebner To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Message-ID: <749793389.11008.1710171708541@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <1710170552.cfuyuw2qf0.astroid@yuna.none> References: <20240305092703.126906-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240305092703.126906-10-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <1710162739.scaemiackd.astroid@yuna.none> <883428477.10855.1710166942215@webmail.proxmox.com> <1710170552.cfuyuw2qf0.astroid@yuna.none> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev59 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite 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 pxar 09/36] encoder: add payload advance capability 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: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:42:20 -0000 > On 11.03.2024 16:27 CET Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >=20 >=20 > what I mean is - when you read this you encode it as PayloadOffset. when > you advance it to skip (ahead) to a certain offset, it's now a regular > u64. >=20 > I know the (only) input here (at the moment!) is chunk size(s), but what > effectively happens is you tell the encoder "advance by offset X", so we > might as well mark it as such in the interface, and force callers to > think "hey, does it make sense to cast/wrap the u64 I have here as an > offset in payload context?" (which it does when we want to let the > encoder skip ahead by X chunks) >=20 Okay, yes I see your point. > > I was thinking of adding the chunks themself as parameters, this would = however > > require to expose that type to the pxar crate, so I opted for keeping t= his as > > unsigned integer. Maybe I should construct a dedicated type just for th= is? >=20 > I think it's fine to just pass the value by which we want to advance, I > just wonder whether it doesn't make sense to refer to it as > PayloadOffset across the board and internally, to make it clear at the > pxar <-> rest interface what meaning this u64 has, to avoid confusing it > with the other (wrapped or unwrapped) u64 values we have all around. Okay, I will wrap this as well then