From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 D63386CC24
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CC3349A32
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:42 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 51DB69A27
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:42 +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 299E944517
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:36 +0200 (CEST)
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20210917130227.248852-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20210917130227.248852-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<e5484859-715a-7878-568e-c0b78431a9be@proxmox.com>
<a5b8645d-222c-06b0-c753-031242fdd0b3@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <00d4a32f-0b23-83b0-c09b-fe05ab4d69ed@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a5b8645d-222c-06b0-c753-031242fdd0b3@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.319 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [dirplugin.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 1/6] dir plugin: update notes: don't
attempt to remove non-existent notes
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: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:40:42 -0000
Am 24.09.21 um 11:03 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> On 24.09.21 10:54, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> On 9/17/21 15:02, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>> PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm
>>> index 2267f11..0423e5f 100644
>>> --- a/PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm
>>> +++ b/PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm
>>> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ sub update_volume_notes {
>>> if (defined($notes) && $notes ne '') {
>>> PVE::Tools::file_set_contents($path, $notes);
>>> - } else {
>>> + } elsif (-e $path) {
>>> unlink $path or die "could not delete notes - $!\n";
>>> }
>>> return;
>>>
>>
>> nit: it is still racy, and imho the correct solution would be to
>> ignore the error but only if the file did not exists
>> iow $! is ENOENT
>>
Good point.
>> for most cases it's enough though and i am not sure if the
>> added complexity is worth it...
>
> IMO it's worth it and it's really not much complexity..
>
> use POSIX; # or `use POSIX qw(ENOENT);` if we filter default-exports from the POSIX module already
>
> unlink $path;
> die "could not delete notes - $!\n" if $! && $! != ENOENT;
>
Ok, I'll do that in v2.