From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36C071FF15E for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:50:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7F09C9226; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:50:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:50:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Wolfgang Bumiller References: <20250321134852.103871-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20250321134852.103871-10-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.040 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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 storage v5 09/32] plugin: introduce new_backup_provider() method 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 24.03.25 um 16:43 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller: > Just a short high level nit today, will have to look more closely at > this and the series the next days: > > There's a `new()` which takes an $scfg + $storeid. > > But later there are some methods taking `$self` (which usually means the > thing returned from `new()`), which also get a `$storeid` as additional > parameter (but without any `$scfg`). IMO the `$storeid` should be > dropped there. Nice catch! Yeah, I think that was an oversight when I restructured in an earlier version. In fact, my example implementations of those functions even use $self->{storeid} already (or don't require the storeid at all). I'll remove those left-overs in v6. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel