From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 D00B16D39D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:47:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C07472C7FB
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:47:08 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 1C45A2C7EE
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:47:04 +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 E483343315
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:46:57 +0200 (CEST)
To: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20210806134647.632054-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<20210806134647.632054-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<c12e7c0a-d5b4-e152-dcd0-9ab925afa6d9@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <2619d761-5035-9b07-d6d1-fbb3e5fe6265@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:46:51 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c12e7c0a-d5b4-e152-dcd0-9ab925afa6d9@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.307 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 -0.001 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [storage.pm, plugin.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 storage 1/9] storage: add new
find_free_volname
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: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:47:08 -0000
On 8/12/21 2:50 PM, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> Am 06.08.21 um 15:46 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
>> This new method exposes the functionality to request a new, not yet
>> used, volname for a storage.
>>
>> The default implementation will return the result from
>> 'find_free_diskname' prefixed with "<VMID>/" if $scfg->{path} exists.
>> Otherwise it will only return the result from 'find_free_diskname'.
>>
>> If the format suffix is added also depends on the existence of
>> $scfg->{path}.
>>
>> $scfg->{path} will be present for directory based storage types.
>>
>> Should a storage need to return a different volname, it needs to override
>> the 'find_free_volname' method.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>
>> v1 -> v2:
>> * drop exposed 'find_free_diskname' in favor of 'find_free_volname'
>> * dropped 'wants_fmt_suffix' as 'find_free_volname' now decides that itself
>>
>> rfc -> v1:
>> dropped $add_fmt_suffix parameter and added the "wants_fmt_suffix"
>> helper method in each plugin.
>>
>> PVE/Storage.pm | 9 +++++++++
>> PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 11 +++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm
>> index c04b5a2..c38fe7b 100755
>> --- a/PVE/Storage.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm
>> @@ -203,6 +203,15 @@ sub storage_can_replicate {
>> return $plugin->storage_can_replicate($scfg, $storeid, $format);
>> }
>> +sub find_free_volname {
>> + my ($cfg, $storeid, $vmid, $fmt) = @_;
>> +
>> + my $scfg = storage_config($cfg, $storeid);
>> + my $plugin = PVE::Storage::Plugin->lookup($scfg->{type});
>> +
>> + return $plugin->find_free_volname($storeid, $scfg, $vmid, $fmt);
>> +}
>> +
>> sub storage_ids {
>> my ($cfg) = @_;
>> giff --git a/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
>> index b1865cb..e043329 100644
>> --- a/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
>> @@ -685,6 +685,17 @@ sub find_free_diskname {
>> return get_next_vm_diskname($disk_list, $storeid, $vmid, $fmt, $scfg, $add_fmt_suffix);
>> }
>> +sub find_free_volname {
>> + my ($class, $storeid, $scfg, $vmid, $fmt) = @_;
>> +
>> + my $diskname = $class->find_free_diskname($storeid, $scfg, $vmid, $fmt, exists($scfg->{path}));
>> +
>> + if (exists($scfg->{path})) {
>
> More of a nit, but I don't like the usage of exists here, for two reasons:
>
> 1. The main reason: it's inconsistent with all the other checks for $scfg->{path} that are used throughout the file.
>
> 2. It's more likely to break. Consider some code I've made up, but similar code might exist somewhere in our code base:
> ...
> my $path = get_path_from_config($cfg, $storeid);
> my $scfg = {
> path => $path,
> content => $content,
> ...
> };
> or
> my $start = $scfg->{path}[0];
> # auto-vivication means the 'path' key now always exists (with undef value if it was undef before)
> if (defined($start) && $start eq '/') {
> ...
> }
>
> Using exists here makes it necessary to check that such code is not used for $scfg, currently and in the future.
Okay I see your point. So following the regular approach throughout the pve-storage repo should be okay. That is, evaluating $scfg->{path} directly.
>
>> + return "${vmid}/$diskname";
>> + }
>> + return $diskname;
>> +}
>> +
>> sub clone_image {
>> my ($class, $scfg, $storeid, $volname, $vmid, $snap) = @_;
>>