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 BA423941BD for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:44:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9C95D21B76 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:44:48 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:44:47 +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 412834820F; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:44:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:44:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" , "pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" , "aderumier@odiso.com" References: <20230213120021.3783742-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20230213120021.3783742-9-aderumier@odiso.com> <4fdef341370d73018cabf61eb576da91f7401088.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <4fdef341370d73018cabf61eb576da91f7401088.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.048 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 -0.102 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 qemu-server 08/16] config: memory: add 'max' option 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, 23 Feb 2023 07:44:48 -0000 Am 23.02.23 um 08:35 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre: > Hi, > >>> +PVE::JSONSchema::register_format('pve-qm-memory-max', >>> \&verify_qm_memory_max); >>> +sub verify_qm_memory_max { >>> +    my ($max, $noerr) = @_; >>> + >>> +    return if $noerr; >> >> $noerr only switches if the function should die upon error or return >> undef upon error. But if there is no error, you always need to return >> the verified value, i.e. $max. >> > > I'm a bit lost here. I have looked at other verify subs, and I don't > have find a single one returning a value on noerr. If there is no error and $noerr is set, they do. > > All other verify subs have something like: > > if ($max % 65536 != 0) { > return if $noerr; > die "max memory need to be a multiple of 64GiB\n"; > } > Yes, this would be correct. Note that it behaves differently from the current patch. The current patch always executes return if $noerr; but the new version only executes it when $max % 65536 != 0. If $max % 65536 == 0, you don't enter the if and then return $max even if $noerr is set.