From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 1D968922FC
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:38:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C23E316E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:37:32 +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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:37:31 +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 6D5E1433D8;
 Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:37:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <21d0e1a3-741f-7783-9ee8-ae4f748c54dd@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:37:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:105.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/105.0
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Leo Nunner <l.nunner@proxmox.com>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220909114539.61612-1-l.nunner@proxmox.com>
 <e806e2a2-b720-3ed0-6327-b80bd213a35a@proxmox.com>
 <f47adeec-0214-43b6-a50c-6366abbf97aa@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <f47adeec-0214-43b6-a50c-6366abbf97aa@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 2.140 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           -4.101 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: [pve-devel] [PATCH container] fix #4192: add new
 architecture-dependent path to check for newer versions of systemd
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: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:38:02 -0000

On 9/12/22 11:30, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> [snip]
>>>   # non systemd based containers work with pure cgroupv2
>>>   sub unified_cgroupv2_support {
>>> -    my ($self) = @_;
>>> +    my ($self, $conf) = @_;
>>
>> why pass the whole config if you just need the arch? Please avoid overly generic
>> parameter in signatures if only one specific thing is required.
>>
> 
> AFAICS, not even that is necessary, since a 'LXC::Setup' object has the config in self
> so we could do there a '$self->{confg}->{arch}' and omit the parameter passing completely
> (or am i missing something else here?)
> 
> 

ah ok leo told me that we call it in the 'plugin' where the config is not in self
sorry for the noise ...