From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 25F258D712
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Nov 2022 18:10:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 05F87AA19
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Nov 2022 18:09:42 +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>; Tue,  8 Nov 2022 18:09:41 +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 3AA9042E32
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Nov 2022 18:09:41 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <7e8a5b3e-e33c-f029-130e-c3de1153043e@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 18:09:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/107.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Stefan Hrdlicka <s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>
References: <20220912152507.3498492-1-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>
 <20220912152507.3498492-2-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220912152507.3498492-2-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.033 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           -0.001 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
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [storage.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH V2 pve-storage 1/8] add a storage_exists
 function
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: Tue, 08 Nov 2022 17:10:12 -0000

Am 12/09/2022 um 17:25 schrieb Stefan Hrdlicka:
> adds a function that can take a volume id and return the relevant
> storage config
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hrdlicka <s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  PVE/Storage.pm | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm
> index b9c53a1..9e95e3d 100755
> --- a/PVE/Storage.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm
> @@ -158,6 +158,15 @@ my $convert_maxfiles_to_prune_backups = sub {
>      }
>  };
>  
> +sub storage_exists {

slightly odd interface name IMO, as it's a bit more of a "get storage config from
volid", so adapt the method name in that direction, e.g.:

# extract the storage ID from a volume ID and returns it config or undef if storage could not be
# found (i.e., got removed)
sub storage_config_from_volid {

> +    my ($cfg, $volid) = @_;
> +
> +    my ($storeid, $volname) = parse_volume_id($volid);
> +    my $scfg = storage_config($cfg, $storeid, 1);
> +
> +    return $scfg;

couldn't we avoid the useless intermediate variable and directly

return storage_config($cfg, $storeid, 1);

At which point the question arises if we really want a common helper "just" for this,
no hard feelings against, but is IMO a bit close to thinking that not much would be
lost in terms of code beauty or maintenance if we'd just program those two lines out
on the few call sites.

> +}
> +
>  sub storage_config {
>      my ($cfg, $storeid, $noerr) = @_;
>