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 C260DA9A5 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:59:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A4830375C3 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:59:59 +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 ; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:59:59 +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 E7E2744F85 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:59:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:59:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Lukas Wagner , Proxmox VE development discussion , Maximiliano Sandoval References: <20230627125439.533438-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <948378528.2288.1687872849696@webmail.proxmox.com> <4e6e294b-4e9f-3ee1-413f-eb90e9357031@proxmox.com> From: Stefan Sterz In-Reply-To: <4e6e294b-4e9f-3ee1-413f-eb90e9357031@proxmox.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% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.09 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH installer] tui: persist disk selection for zfs and btrfs 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: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:59:59 -0000 On 27.06.23 15:57, Lukas Wagner wrote: > > > On 6/27/23 15:34, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: >>>     impl BtrfsBootdiskOptions { >>> -    pub fn defaults_from(disk: &Disk) -> Self { >>> +    pub fn defaults_from(disks: &[Disk]) -> Self { >>> +        let disk = &disks[0]; >>>           Self { >>>               disk_size: disk.size, >>> +            selected_disks: (0..disks.len()).collect(), >> >> Any reason not to use Vec::with_capacity(disks.len()) here? >> > > I haven't really examined the rest of the code, but wouldn't that change > the behavior > completely? E.g., if `disk.len()` is 3, then > `(0..disks.len()).collect()` will give you a Vec [0, 1, 2], while > `Vec::with_capacity(disks.len())` would give you an empty Vec with an > initial capacity > of at least 3. > > yes. we've already discussed this off list. this is needed here because otherwise you panic out in `MultiDiskOptionsView::new()` because `selected_disk` would have a length of zero. the ascending numbers are needed to have the same initial selection as we currently do. i'll send a patch with the other nits resolved in a minute.