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 DE93E91582 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:51:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B5458138BC for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:51:44 +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 ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:51:44 +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 C444A492CE for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:51:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: From: Alexander Zeidler To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Thomas Lamprecht Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:51:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: <053a69ff0f007d05c2768862634a805ee1ff19d9.camel@proxmox.com> References: <20240109142356.171494-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com> <053a69ff0f007d05c2768862634a805ee1ff19d9.camel@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.312 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 SCC_BODY_URI_ONLY 2.8 - 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 manager 1/3] pvesubscription: add missing return statement 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: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:51:44 -0000 On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 11:59 +0100, Alexander Zeidler wrote: > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 10:29 +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > > any reason this is relevant you might want to add to the commit > > message here? > to avoid a failing null check and its error message. This confused > users since the activation was successful anyway. >=20 >=20 > > simple > >=20 > > return; > >=20 > > is slightly preferred for returning undef > I considered using it, but then saw the established use of undef. > Thanks! >=20 v2: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-January/061506.html