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 6AA2D71BDA for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5B696252DB for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:27 +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 E7A9E252CF for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:26 +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 B574642FAB for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220610081325.96912-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <20220610085256.2vzgftzhkazoy2np@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> From: Stefan Sterz In-Reply-To: <20220610085256.2vzgftzhkazoy2np@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.825 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.732 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix: config: remove duplicate privilege lookup in cached_user_info 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: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:00:57 -0000 On 6/10/22 10:52, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > Any reason for the "fix: " prefix in the commit message, though? This > just seems to remove something redundant and not actually fix an issue? > Or am I missing something? > > Code-wise it seems fine, so I'd apply it, but I'd drop the 'fix' prefix? > i can see your point in that this technically doesn't fix a bug. you can remove it. my reasoning was that it removes a performance loss (albeit a rather minor one) and also potential confusion when reviewing this code in the future. it tripped me up when i looked at it. at the very least it makes the code here more concise. -- snip --