From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <c.ebner@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 743B1BA2AE
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:52:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5127D1DBC8
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:52:10 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:52:09 +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 1B00346915
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:52:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <ef0c8eb2-7a95-4565-b0cd-0df024a8c320@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:52:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20240305092703.126906-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20240305092703.126906-27-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <1710235177.wzah8r9rl2.astroid@yuna.none>
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1710235177.wzah8r9rl2.astroid@yuna.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 proxmox-backup 26/36] client: chunk stream:
 add chunk injection queues
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: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:52:10 -0000

On 3/12/24 10:46, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> 
> could be combined with the payload_writer and the caching parameters
> added later on? and then the whole thing can be optional?
> 
While I followed the suggested combination of the injection queue 
related state into an optional struct parameter, adding also the caching 
parameters to that quickly gets out of hand, as this would introduce a 
lot of additional checks and borrowing issues. So I will opt for the 
caching part (which is private to the Archiver anyways) to be non 
optional here.