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 328C91FF15C for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 16:02:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 58DF019454; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 16:04:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Fiona Ebner To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 16:03:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20250808140419.119992-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1754661838116 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.026 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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. [proxmox.com, pve8to9.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES manager 0/2] lvm config: check that --clear-needs-check-flag is set if there is a thin_check_options override X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Quoting the commit message from [0] verbatim: > thin_check v1.0.x reveals data block ref count issue that is not being > detected by previous versions, which blocks the pool from activation if > there are any leaked blocks. To reduce potential user complaints on > inactive pools after upgrading and also maintain backward compatibility > between LVM and older thin_check, we decided to adopt the 'auto-repair' > functionality in the --clear-needs-check-flag option, rather than > passing --auto-repair from lvm.conf. Unfortunately, there was already a user report without the override [1], so this might not be the only issue. It's still worth warning users about this though. NOTE: For stable-8 the version check in d/postinst needs to be adapted or maybe we want to run the check always there? [0]: https://github.com/device-mapper-utils/thin-provisioning-tools/commit/eb28ab94 [1]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/169356/post-789894 Fiona Ebner (2): 8 to 9: lvm config: check that --clear-needs-check-flag is set if there is a thin_check_options override d/postinst: lvm config: check that --clear-needs-check-flag is set if there is a thin_check_options override PVE/CLI/pve8to9.pm | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ debian/postinst | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+) -- 2.47.2 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel