From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.hanreich@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 E5A9696CC
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  4 Sep 2023 15:48:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BF179F7D3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  4 Sep 2023 15:47:37 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  4 Sep 2023 15:47:36 +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 15698408E6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  4 Sep 2023 15:47:36 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <fc2cb0ad-7d77-4a4b-5393-673fa751310e@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 15:47:35 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.14.0
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230904091807.687469-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
 <14129d30-0d14-4700-aa49-0afd2607f236@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <14129d30-0d14-4700-aa49-0afd2607f236@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.190 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           -1.473 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH manager v3] api: ceph: improve
 reporting of ceph OSD memory usage
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2023 13:48:07 -0000

On 9/4/23 15:14, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 04/09/2023 um 11:18 schrieb Stefan Hanreich:
>> ---
>> Changes from v2:
>> * closing the file handle after using it
>> * improved error message when failing to open proc file
>> * add hint in the UI that we are using PSS
>> * mentioned Aaron's involvement in commit message
> 
> missing factoring this out to own helper to avoid crowding the API endpoint
> code itself to much, like asked in my review.. If you don't agree please
> state that at least, ideally with a reason..
> 

Sorry, I misunderstood the answer as don't factor it out at all for now 
- but I see now that this was specifically related to ProcFSTools...