From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 659B961405
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Feb 2022 12:39:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5B5BB3124E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Feb 2022 12:39:45 +0100 (CET)
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 8D5A431244
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Feb 2022 12:39:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 566F444BDB
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Feb 2022 12:39:44 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <44f54e46-fa19-b43f-3e09-bd5ad32eb694@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 12:38:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20220203124143.1931377-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
 <20220203124143.1931377-23-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220203124143.1931377-23-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.138 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 storage 4/4] add
 volume_import/export_start helpers
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, 04 Feb 2022 11:39:45 -0000

Am 03.02.22 um 13:41 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler:
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm
> index 837df1b..682dd38 100755
> --- a/PVE/Storage.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm
> @@ -1833,6 +1833,72 @@ sub volume_imported_message {
>      }
>  }
>  
> +# $format and $volname are requests and might be overruled depending on $opts
> +# $opts:
> +# - with_snapshots: passed to `pvesm import` and used to select import format
> +# - allow_rename: passed to `pvesm import`
> +# - export_formats: used to select common transport format
> +# - unix: unix socket path
> +sub volume_import_start {
> +    my ($cfg, $storeid, $volname, $format, $vmid, $opts) = @_;
> +
> +    my $with_snapshots = $opts->{'with_snapshots'} ? 1 : 0;
> +
> +    $volname = $volname_for_storage->($cfg, $storeid, $volname, $vmid, $format);
> +
> +    my $volid = "$storeid:$volname";
> +
> +    if (!defined($opts->{snapshot})) {
> +	$opts->{migration_snapshot} = storage_migrate_snapshot($cfg, $storeid);
> +	$opts->{snapshot} = '__migration__' if $opts->{migration_snapshot};
> +    }

Don't we actually need to have the exporting side tell us whether it's
using a migration snapshot or not? In practice, not many combinations
are affected, but e.g. lvm-thin -> btrfs doesn't work, because the
importing side thinks it needs a common format with snapshot (but the
exporting side wouldn't actually use a snapshot).

> +
> +    # find common import/export format, like volume_transfer_formats
> +    my @import_formats = PVE::Storage::volume_import_formats($cfg, $volid, $opts->{migration_snapshot}, undef, $with_snapshots);

Found while testing: here you need to pass in $opts->{snapshot}. While
plugins are unlikely to base the decision based on the snapshot name,
our plugins use definedness of that parameter and
$opts->{migration_snapshot} can be ''.

Nit: the 'PVE::Storage::' prefix is not necessary.

> +    my @export_formats = PVE::Tools::split_list($opts->{export_formats});
> +    my %import_hash = map { $_ => 1 } @import_formats;
> +    my @common = grep { $import_hash{$_} } @export_formats;
> +    die "no matching import/export format found for storage '$storeid'\n"
> +	if !@common;
> +    $format = $common[0];