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 871C76B3DC for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:37:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7AA5BE56A for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:37:18 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 11EC5E55B for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:37:18 +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 C95F241FCC for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:37:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <6662cee7-5a58-03bc-4c7a-e37758720d86@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:37:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/86.0 Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht To: Stoiko Ivanov Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210218113328.14488-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> <9004b4ad-eb2e-72a0-0c38-9392a50e1660@proxmox.com> <20210218141556.215b9fce@rosa.proxmox.com> <65ace04f-f5c6-9a35-f9a4-f6a266dd1601@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <65ace04f-f5c6-9a35-f9a4-f6a266dd1601@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.059 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] [RFC storage] zfspoolplugin: check if mounted instead of imported 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, 18 Feb 2021 13:37:48 -0000 On 18.02.21 14:34, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>>> + if (!defined($dataset_mounted->())) { >>> don't complicated boolean, drop the defined. >> in that case the return value of $dataset_mounted->() is ternary: > Then the more NAK'd for my taste, that method being ternary is IMO > not nice and sensible. > > Please, make it boolean (in the perverse sense perl defines bool) > >> * undefined - error during `zfs get` -> we most likely need to import the >> pool And here I do not mean I do not want to have such a heuristic or the like, but I'd like it a bit more explicit, as having defined but false and undefined differ is always a bit a recipe for misuse (yeah it's a local closure so it doesn't need to be held against the standards of a "public" method but still, not ideal. Maybe avoid the eval in the closure and handle the error explicit?