From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E3381FF0E6
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 07 Aug 2026 14:52:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BAB442153C;
	Fri, 07 Aug 2026 14:52:29 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 14:52:26 +0200
Message-Id: <DKIQ53OS7Z01.8X1Z9E8M3SJT@proxmox.com>
To: "Robert Obkircher" <r.obkircher@proxmox.com>
From: "Max R. Carrara" <m.carrara@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup 2/2] pbs-tape: rename `buffer` to
 `header`
X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2-0-ge037c095a049
References: <20260805141620.4190773-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com>
 <20260805141620.4190773-3-m.carrara@proxmox.com>
 <178601383145.99099.10335181077951352838.b4-review@b4>
In-Reply-To: <178601383145.99099.10335181077951352838.b4-review@b4>
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1786107139150
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.730 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From:
 address
	DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS         0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
 Alignment (newer systems)
	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
Message-ID-Hash: FMB7A2IAOP4ANXXLMZV75TSKPBHOUV5A
X-Message-ID-Hash: FMB7A2IAOP4ANXXLMZV75TSKPBHOUV5A
X-MailFrom: m.carrara@proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop;
 banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation;
 administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation;
 no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pbs-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pbs-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pbs-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

On Thu Aug 6, 2026 at 12:57 PM CEST, Robert Obkircher wrote:
> > ... since `BlockHeader` is now a smart pointer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Max R. Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/pbs-tape/src/blocked_reader.rs b/pbs-tape/src/blocked_read=
er.rs
> > index 33c5db780..9ad16c91f 100644
> > --- a/pbs-tape/src/blocked_reader.rs
> > +++ b/pbs-tape/src/blocked_reader.rs
> > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ use crate::{
> >  /// the end of the stream).
> >  pub struct BlockedReader<R> {
> >      reader: R,
> > -    buffer: BlockHeader,
> > +    header: BlockHeader,
>
> I'm confused about the naming. Shouldn't this be something more like
> `buffer: BlockBuffer` which then consists of a few header fields plus a
> payload? Or is the payload really part of the header?

AFAIU the `BlockHeader` struct refers to an entire block of data written
to / read from tape (header + payload) -- so I think it's overall a bit
of a misnomer, yes.

That being said, I don't mind renaming this (and its related structs) as
part of a different series, perhaps including an overall cleanup as
well, where applicable.