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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36DAB606E8 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:36:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 202CA25DF5 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:35:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 id ABFE325DEB for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:35:30 +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 7B18D44920 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:35:30 +0100 (CET) To: Wolfgang Bumiller , Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20201202092113.15911-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20201202092113.15911-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <465555934.572.1606986979440@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: <0daba288-b41e-240a-2f89-b9e061811511@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:35:29 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/84.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <465555934.572.1606986979440@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.074 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 1/1] tools: add extract_sensitive_params X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 09:36:01 -0000 On 03.12.20 10:16, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: >> On 12/03/2020 9:47 AM Thomas Lamprecht wrote= : >> On 02.12.20 10:21, Dominik Csapak wrote: >>> + for my $opt (@$sensitive_list) { >>> + # First handle deletions as explicitly setting `undef`, afterwards = new values may override >>> + # it. >> >> I know this is just copied, but there's no actual reason for setting t= o undef vs. >> using delete encoded in that comment, it's just merely describing what= one sees >> when reading the code anyhow.. >> >> @Wolfgang, you as original author (pve-storage commit 72385de9e23df) w= hy did you >> used undef vs. delete? >=20 > The update hooks in pve-storage don't get the deletion-list passed on a= s parameter, > so I translated into putting `undef` into the parameter list. >=20 OK, then that would be a much better comment here as it gives an actual reason, something like # delete by setting to undef so that add/update hooks can know about it