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 241541FF183 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:11:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 828469CF1; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:11:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <75bd9a19-1194-4a9b-9191-b3ead256e152@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:10:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Stefan Hanreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20240802115322.71114-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <23ced8c2-9e15-4e86-adea-85f51e8d5769@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <23ced8c2-9e15-4e86-adea-85f51e8d5769@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.056 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 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common] inotify: avoid cyclic use statement 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" Am 11.11.24 um 12:49 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: > On 8/2/24 13:53, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> @Stefan: Do you have any good rationale to rather keep the check? > > maybe change it from log_warn to warn? I can send a patch if you like. See the commit message: >> The rest of the PVE::INotify module alredy uses syslog(), which could >> be used here as well to get rid of the cyclic usage. Wolfgang argued >> that the whole point of commit e68ebda was to remove coupling between >> the name and the type of the interface. If there still is some code >> about a name starting with 'vmbr' being classified wrong, that should >> rather be fixed. Because of the very commit, the frontend already >> doesn't show e.g. a non-bridge with name 'vmbr7' in bridge selectors. If we keep it, syslog() is better than warn here. But why is it better for the check to be there than not (like Wolfgang suggested)? _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel