From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 3D09EE12A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  7 Dec 2022 10:02:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 16C7D361D1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  7 Dec 2022 10:02:16 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  7 Dec 2022 10:02:15 +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 0183D450C6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  7 Dec 2022 10:02:15 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <b86d807c-79f5-b6b9-9563-6c9d9c803614@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 10:02:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.5.0
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20221202125931.57214-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <d28361b6-a84c-8e15-7865-e18bc4c0f3d1@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d28361b6-a84c-8e15-7865-e18bc4c0f3d1@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.158 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           -0.262 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
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] cfg2cmd: factor out ovmf drives
 printing
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: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 09:02:16 -0000

Am 06.12.22 um 18:11 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> Am 02/12/2022 um 13:59 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
>> No functional change is intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Popped out while trying the other approach mentioned in:
>> https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2022-December/055091.html
> 
> looks ok, having it in a separate method opens up a few more "line reduction without
> making it harder to understand" possibilities, e.g., the following diff would drop
> 21 lines, but reorder the var string a bit too - what do you think?
> 

Seems like the tabs got converted to spaces in the diff somewhere along
the way. But other than the few lines that break the 100 char limit, it
looks ok to me :)