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.