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 CE9B671321
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C74542B49A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
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 id 5E5B42B48C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2B2E544495
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <996c2d9a-b296-7484-262f-dd31e5b85893@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:03:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/90.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Lorenz Stechauner <l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
References: <20210625122937.2910309-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210625122937.2910309-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.608 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
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH v2 common] fix #3153: INotify: adding
 comment of interface to inet6 section when this is the only section
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: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:03:22 -0000

On 25.06.21 14:29, Lorenz Stechauner wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Stechauner <l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> changes to v1:
> * using delete instead of undef
> * added length check for families
> 

You were right regarding the "inet6" only logic, but it should not hurt to make it
more specific either and having more limited assumptions (i.e., that the serializer
has the invariant of merging those comment properties) is often more robust, so I'd
have slightly preferred this variant, but just for the record as you went for the
"right" one anyway.

>  src/PVE/INotify.pm | 11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!