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 5D7DA91DC2 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:18:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 471513ACBA for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:18:27 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:18:26 +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 57A284936B for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:18:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:18:20 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240130184041.1125674-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20240130184041.1125674-4-m.carrara@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240130184041.1125674-4-m.carrara@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1706701463.bcepid72cn.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.065 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 pve-storage 3/8] cephconfig: support sections in the format of [client.$NAME] X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:18:27 -0000 On January 30, 2024 7:40 pm, Max Carrara wrote: > Signed-off-by: Max Carrara > --- > src/PVE/CephConfig.pm | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >=20 > diff --git a/src/PVE/CephConfig.pm b/src/PVE/CephConfig.pm > index 6b10d46..46b92ea 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/CephConfig.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/CephConfig.pm > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ sub write_ceph_config { > =20 > &$cond_write_sec('global'); > &$cond_write_sec('client'); > + &$cond_write_sec('client\..*'); > =20 > &$cond_write_sec('mds'); > &$cond_write_sec('mon'); this whole code is a bit weird (pre-existing, not your patch in particular).. should we maybe switch it to - keep track of sections which were already written - write out all not-yet-written sections as a last step? else, a RMW cycle might lose config sections just because this code is not aware of them? while we're at it, double-checking how the ceph parser handles sections with whitespace in their name and other funny business might be a good idea, just to prevent any discrepancy between our parser and theirs..