From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 6B4B89010E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:32:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4D727189E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:32:43 +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 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:32:41 +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 2F47044484; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:32:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <a976a541-b01a-40a6-9dcb-7530a329cc8b@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:32:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20240318111836.1947580-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20240318111836.1947580-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <3d90ae3d-5464-4546-b90a-465a82ebce4b@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <3d90ae3d-5464-4546-b90a-465a82ebce4b@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.014 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 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 guest-common 2/2] mapping: pci: optionally return the config in 'find_on_current_node' 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, 02 Apr 2024 09:32:43 -0000 On 3/22/24 14:38, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 18.03.24 um 12:18 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> this is useful to get to the config without having to parse it again >> > > You could also adapt the call sites that need it to use > PVE::Mapping::PCI::config() and PVE::Mapping::PCI::get_node_mapping() > instead of PVE::Mapping::PCI::find_on_current_node(). > > That would avoid overloading the return value. IMHO > find_on_current_node() doesn't sound like it should return the full map > config, even if just optionally. yes that's a better idea.... as it stands we only use the 'find_on_current_node' call only once anyway, so when we move the implementation to the current call site, we could remove it here (if we'd ever need it again, it should be trivial to introduce it then)