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 8AB279428C for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 685731A1B1 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:10 +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 ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:09 +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 925774451A for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:37:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Fiona Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231219094023.25726-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com> <20231219094023.25726-2-f.schauer@proxmox.com> <848a06d3-a136-482b-9fa4-07971c956a55@proxmox.com> From: Filip Schauer In-Reply-To: <848a06d3-a136-482b-9fa4-07971c956a55@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.108 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 1/1] tools: Add is_native sub to compare the CPU architecture 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: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:37:40 -0000 Patch v8 available: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-February/061899.html On 19/02/2024 15:46, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 19.12.23 um 10:40 schrieb Filip Schauer: >> Add an is_native($arch) subroutine to compare a CPU architecture to the >> host CPU architecture. This is brought in from PVE::QemuServer. >> >> Signed-off-by: Filip Schauer >> --- >> src/PVE/Tools.pm | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/Tools.pm b/src/PVE/Tools.pm >> index 766c809..7bb1809 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/Tools.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/Tools.pm >> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ extract_param >> extract_sensitive_params >> file_copy >> get_host_arch >> +is_native >> O_PATH >> O_TMPFILE >> AT_EMPTY_PATH >> @@ -1841,6 +1842,11 @@ sub get_host_arch { >> return $host_arch; >> } >> >> +sub is_native($) { > This is a too generic name to put in such a generic module like Tools. > Admittedly, it's also a too generic name in QemuServer IMHO ;) Maybe > arch_is_native() or is_native_arch()? > > I'm not fully convinced the move is worth it, but it does belong to > get_host_arch() semantically, so fine by me. > >> + my ($arch) = @_; >> + return get_host_arch() eq $arch; >> +} >> + >> # Devices are: [ (12 bits minor) (12 bits major) (8 bits minor) ] >> sub dev_t_major($) { >> my ($dev_t) = @_;