From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <l.nunner@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 C54DE91958 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 15:20:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A06ECD801 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 15:20:59 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 15:20:55 +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 9BDCB42B68 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 15:20:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <71e16b47-d5c2-cdbc-c97a-eb332c4a7a09@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 15:20:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20221201113257.57225-1-l.nunner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Leo Nunner <l.nunner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20221201113257.57225-1-l.nunner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.113 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 -0.09 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. [cephfsplugin.pm, plugin.pm, cifsplugin.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage manager docs] Allow mounting of CIFS subdirectories 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, 02 Feb 2023 14:20:59 -0000 On 2022-12-01 12:32, Leo Nunner wrote: > CIFS supports mounting subdirectories inside a share, so it makes sense > to also have the 'subdir' parameter for the CIFS backend. I'm also > looking into allowing overrides for all the fixed directories, but > even then, I think it makes sense to support this parameter (for either > providing a prefix to all the other directories, or just changing the > base directory). > > storage: > > Leo Nunner (1): > fix #2641: allow mounting of CIFS subdirectories > > PVE/Storage/CIFSPlugin.pm | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > PVE/Storage/CephFSPlugin.pm | 4 ---- > PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 5 +++++ > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > manager: > > Leo Nunner (1): > fix #2641: expose CIFS subdir parameter through GUI > > www/manager6/storage/CIFSEdit.js | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > docs: > > Leo Nunner (1): > fix #2641: document subdir parameter for CIFS backend > > pve-storage-cifs.adoc | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) Bump due to continued user demand. storage and manager seem to still apply, while docs produces a merge conflict because it clashes with the "content-dirs" documentation. Does this warrant a v2?