From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 7C4016C085 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:21:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 67A222FA23 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:20:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 C6F3C2FA13 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:20:48 +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 8BC9B4613E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:20:48 +0100 (CET) To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20201014113628.14286-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <6a3087eb-4fe3-c282-99a5-c2b697fdb72b@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:20:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:85.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/85.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201014113628.14286-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.064 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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. [replicationconfig.pm, proxmox.com, replication.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES] remove replicated volumes on guest purge 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: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:21:20 -0000 On 14.10.20 13:36, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Introduces two helper functions in Replication.pm and ReplicationConfig.pm > so that the guests can do the removal easily. > > destroy_vm contains a check whether the guest is still in use by a > linked clone (in the LXC case triggered by the storage backend at vdisk_free), > so that needs to happen first. > That check could be factored out and removing replicated volumes moved > to before destroy_vm, but I feel like it's cleaner to first destroy the > VM and do all related cleanups later (as it is now). > > The problem is that the guest config does not contain any volumes > after destroy_vm, and run_full_removal would do nothing, because > on removal, run_replication currently only considers storages that > show up in the config and not those from the replication job state. > > Therefore, this depends on the following patch to be applied first: > https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2020-October/045386.html > > Dependency bumps: qemu-server,pve-container -> pve-guest-common > are needed for patches #2 and #3 > and I think the reverse bumps are needed for patch #4 > Besides that, is this still relevant? If so, it may need some rebasing, at least guest-common does.