From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D7991FF165 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2025 15:46:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4ABE315F3F; Thu, 3 Jul 2025 15:46:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <62235b71-de6f-40a0-bd0b-00ed94b0b73c@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 15:46:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Wolfgang Bumiller , Gabriel Goller References: <20250702145101.894299-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <20250702145101.894299-2-g.goller@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.680 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.237 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [rust-lang.org] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox v4 1/5] network-types: initial commit 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 7/3/25 15:11, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: >> + /// checks whether this CIDR contains an IPv4 address. >> + pub fn contains_address(&self, other: &Ipv4Addr) -> bool { >> + let bits = u32::from_be_bytes(self.addr.octets()); >> + let other_bits = u32::from_be_bytes(other.octets()); >> + >> + let shift_amount: u32 = IPV4_LENGTH.saturating_sub(self.mask).into(); >> + >> + bits.checked_shr(shift_amount).unwrap_or(0) >> + == other_bits.checked_shr(shift_amount).unwrap_or(0) > > ^ Could IMO just use `>>` since `IPV4_LENGTH.saturating_sub(self.mask)` > is always <= the number of bits or an u32. shift_amount can be 32 and >> needs the shift amount to be strictly smaller than the width of the integer, see [1]. We could short-circuit when mask == width instead? I'll fix the rest in a new version! [1] https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2024&gist=036301d385d610e632210655e44d1e38 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel