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 A8536601E3 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 97CB0941A for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:09 +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 2F126940D for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:09 +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 EA24343725 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:08 +0100 (CET) To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fabian Ebner References: <20201109085633.12688-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:21:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:83.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/83.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201109085633.12688-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.093 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [vzdump.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH manager] fix maxfiles behavior 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: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:21:39 -0000 On 09.11.20 09:56, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Commit 5ba2a605ac14de58572f7b8d6e04b45b34724b0a hard-coded 0 as the default > for maxfiles in the --storage case, but the actual default should be the > value from read_vzdump_defaults(), which obtains the value from > /etc/vzdump.conf or the VZDump schema if the value has not been modified in > that file. The initial default from the schema is 1, not 0. > Tested on PVE 6.1 to verify that behavior. > > Move the sanity check for zero-ness to where we have the final value for > maxfiles. Like this, we also have an implicit definedness check and more > importantly, it is more future-proof in case we ever allow maxfiles 0 in the > VZDump schema itself. > > Also, force conversion to int to be extra safe. > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner > --- > > @Stefan: I wasn't able to trigger a warning about using '== 0' on a non-number type, > the only thing I can get is: > Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) > > Does this patch work with your use case as well or is there something off? > > PVE/VZDump.pm | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > applied, thanks! But I really want tests for this after the releases...