From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.zeidler@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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B754C0212
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:00:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E6C863271D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 11:59:33 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 11:59:33 +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 103C549042
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 11:59:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <053a69ff0f007d05c2768862634a805ee1ff19d9.camel@proxmox.com>
From: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development
 discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 11:59:22 +0100
In-Reply-To: <ef3c15fd-9771-45ed-8532-bb09dde57212@proxmox.com>
References: <20240109142356.171494-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <ef3c15fd-9771-45ed-8532-bb09dde57212@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.059 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: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 1/3] pvesubscription: add missing
 return statement
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 11:00:04 -0000

On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 10:29 +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> any reason this is relevant you might want to add to the commit
> message here?
to avoid a failing null check and its error message. This confused
users since the activation was successful anyway.


> simple
>=20
> return;
>=20
> is slightly preferred for returning undef
I considered using it, but then saw the established use of undef.
Thanks!