From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.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 8E5BDBB02D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:38:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7652A697C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:38:11 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:38:10 +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 3FA0F41A39
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:38:10 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3d90ae3d-5464-4546-b90a-465a82ebce4b@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:38:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20240318111836.1947580-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20240318111836.1947580-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240318111836.1947580-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.074 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH guest-common 2/2] mapping: pci: optionally
 return the config in 'find_on_current_node'
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: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:38:11 -0000

Am 18.03.24 um 12:18 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> this is useful to get to the config without having to parse it again
> 

You could also adapt the call sites that need it to use
PVE::Mapping::PCI::config() and PVE::Mapping::PCI::get_node_mapping()
instead of PVE::Mapping::PCI::find_on_current_node().

That would avoid overloading the return value. IMHO
find_on_current_node() doesn't sound like it should return the full map
config, even if just optionally.