From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A4761FF15E
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 334C17624;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:11:59 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <fd7e9aea-583d-4cd5-b1e3-7251005689af@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:11:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
References: <20250321134852.103871-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20250321134852.103871-4-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <a5jxlhqlzclwqljdg5jz7inrweovnfkihij3c27twgidlqq2dz@bxd37656fuht>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <a5jxlhqlzclwqljdg5jz7inrweovnfkihij3c27twgidlqq2dz@bxd37656fuht>
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
 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 qemu v5 03/32] PVE backup: implement backup
 access setup and teardown API for external providers
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
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" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

Am 24.03.25 um 14:02 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller:
> The code below can also be factored out as AFAICT it, too, is a copy, if
> `backup_file` is a parameter (which which `NULL` may be passed, as
> `g_strdup()` explicitly maps NULL to NULL), and `uuid` as well I guess
> (here it's not touched but may as well be cleared (or the function would
> ignore it when NULL is passed)).

I now wonder if it's actually better to also generate a UUID for the
backup access just like for the usual backup? It's returned as part of
the result for query-backup and like that call sides could use the
information (e.g. to see if it's still the same backup access) if ever
required.


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel