From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83DE1FF14F for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:07:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8B03335CEE; Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:07:19 +0200 (CEST) From: =?UTF-8?q?Fabian=20Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Robert Obkircher Subject: applied-series: [PATCH v1 proxmox-backup 0/2] fix prune and sync count on datastores summary Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:06:37 +0200 Message-ID: <178170154796.710009.1660497572957572033.b4-ty@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260603152257.285923-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> References: <20260603152257.285923-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1781701547960 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.054 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 Message-ID-Hash: FZD364KDYFUKD56KMSUP5ZGDIZIVHYTB X-Message-ID-Hash: FZD364KDYFUKD56KMSUP5ZGDIZIVHYTB X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 03 Jun 2026 17:22:15 +0200, Robert Obkircher wrote: > The datastore id was incorrectly parsed from the worker id, so some > tasks weren't counted towards the total for their datastore. > > Robert Obkircher (2): > www: fix incorrect prune count on datastores summary > www: fix incorrect sync count on datastores summary > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/2] www: fix incorrect prune count on datastores summary commit: d7f41858c728170d22b21ef061425f3b757ee86d [2/2] www: fix incorrect sync count on datastores summary commit: efdbdc7140c806fde7261cc5eb5abb60ea1e1837 Best regards, -- Fabian Grünbichler