From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1F0D1FF13F for ; Thu, 07 May 2026 11:47:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B200311FF6; Thu, 7 May 2026 11:47:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3b8cb9b3-4155-4878-9ef3-5c0de0200f48@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 11:47:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH storage v3 1/2] fix #7339: lvmthick: add worker to free space of to be deleted VMs To: Friedrich Weber , Lukas Sichert , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260423144721.54451-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com> <20260423144721.54451-2-l.sichert@proxmox.com> <24d217bf-5b9f-48d2-8754-9614bbbc5484@proxmox.com> <8cb01407-870d-4166-9f27-7fc2fe0ae4a6@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <8cb01407-870d-4166-9f27-7fc2fe0ae4a6@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778147138762 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.003 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: XQRFCXZR7W2DVYCITGZTDXBWERHVLHY2 X-Message-ID-Hash: XQRFCXZR7W2DVYCITGZTDXBWERHVLHY2 X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 06.05.26 um 12:10 schrieb Friedrich Weber: > On 06/05/2026 11:57, Lukas Sichert wrote: >> On 2026-05-05 17:59, Friedrich Weber wrote: ... >> That said, this is also suboptimal because if other plugins return >> worker tasks from their '$free_image' implementations, then their >> descriptions could also be altered if these flags are set. In the >> default Proxmox stack this is currently not the case, but it could >> affect external plugins. Yeah, this is IMO not really the right level for this. I.e., some storage specific edge case in the generic plugin storage interface. >> Another option would be to rename the displayed name for an 'imgdel' >> task in the UI to 'Destroy image'. That would fit the generic worker >> task better and would also make the naming consistent with >> 'unknownimgdel', which is currently displayed as >> 'Destroy image from unknown guest'. > > Yeah, changing the GUI description of 'imgdel' like that could be an > option! Though of course there is also some confusion potential there, > especially for users who upgrade. FWIW, I also think that it's not perfect, but at least much simpler and doesn't changes/adds any worker task type, and in addition to that the respective storage plugins could do a worker task log with such info in higher detail. > > What do others think? > >> >> Does anybody have opinions on how to go forward with this? See above, the approach here breaks abstraction boundaries, so IMO not acceptable for the ROI we get, so would rather live with the tradeoffs of the UI + task log solution over this.