From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 720DFBB95
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  2 May 2022 08:51:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 701A9248AB
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  2 May 2022 08:51:23 +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 id 6480E248A0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  2 May 2022 08:51:22 +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 3D2A041EA1;
 Mon,  2 May 2022 08:51:22 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <20c61ee9-eadf-8995-a6fb-388f2396567c@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 08:51:21 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/100.0
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220429100030.809902-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <c5e664da-59a2-eeec-8547-4c78aaa90d7e@proxmox.com>
 <8f52f28f-e96c-d8df-e355-92564ec66f29@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <8f52f28f-e96c-d8df-e355-92564ec66f29@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.097 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           -1.943 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] BTRFSPlugin: reuse DirPlugin
 update/get_volume_attribute
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, 02 May 2022 06:51:23 -0000

>>> +    return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::update_volume_notes( @_);
>>> +}
>>
>> makes no sense to add these? they are deprecated and unused anyway
> 
> no actually, the DirPlugin implementation calls
> $class->get_volume_notes for now, so it would try to call the
> BtrfsPlugin version of those which inherits from Plugin which dies in those...
> (CephFs/CIFS/NFS actually do the same as i did here)
> 
> i guess we could do (untested)
> --8<--
> shift @_; # discard class
> PVE::Storage::DirPlugin->update_volume_notes(@_);
> -->8--

i meant update_volume_attributes ofc