From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w.bumiller@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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E45B8A2EB
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:31:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3D32A2B811
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:31:20 +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, 25 Jul 2022 15:31:19 +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 8F45042BD2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:31:19 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:31:18 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Stefan Hrdlicka <s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <20220725133118.rd75siwly4aoih4j@casey.proxmox.com>
References: <20220720144949.1568323-1-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>
 <e53cf62c-55fc-6b8e-cc78-3ad19cdee77e@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e53cf62c-55fc-6b8e-cc78-3ad19cdee77e@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.276 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
 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 pve-container 0/3] fix #3711: delete LXC
 container with missing storage
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, 25 Jul 2022 13:31:50 -0000

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:40:21PM +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 20.07.22 um 16:49 schrieb Stefan Hrdlicka:
> > The patch adds a new option 'force-remove-storage' that stops pct
> > destory from dying if the storage is not available. This also adds a
> > menu option for the delete dialog of containers.
> > 
> 
> VMs are also affected, so we probably want the new option there too.
> Although for VMs, it is possible to work around the issue by detaching
> all non-existing disks first.

Yeah, this is really mostly an issue with the `rootfs`, since you cannot
detach or remove it, so I think we could have this for VMs just for
consistency's sake.

> So slightly related: when detaching a disk and the owner of the volume
> is different (it also happens when the storage/disk does not exist
> anymore), we drop the disk for VMs, but we register it as unused for
> containers. Should we make that consistent?

Yeah I think consistency makes more sense there as well.