From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 AA11ABB8F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 98A3624837
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:28 +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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 615842482A
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:27 +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 2B4A341E17;
Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:27 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <8f52f28f-e96c-d8df-e355-92564ec66f29@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:26 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/100.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220429100030.809902-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<c5e664da-59a2-eeec-8547-4c78aaa90d7e@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <c5e664da-59a2-eeec-8547-4c78aaa90d7e@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.848 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 -1.943 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 -
URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] BTRFSPlugin: reuse DirPlugin
update/get_volume_attribute
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: Mon, 02 May 2022 06:48:58 -0000
On 5/2/22 08:36, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 4/29/22 um 12:00 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> this allows setting notes+protected for backups on btrfs
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm
>> index be613f4..dd5f139 100644
>> --- a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm
>> @@ -138,9 +138,25 @@ sub status {
>> return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::status($class, $storeid, $scfg, $cache);
>> }
>>
>> -# TODO: sub get_volume_attribute {}
>> +# FIXME remove on the next APIAGE reset.
>> +# Deprecated, use get_volume_attribute instead.
>> +sub get_volume_notes {
>> + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::get_volume_notes(@_);
>> +}
>> +
>> +# FIXME remove on the next APIAGE reset.
>> +# Deprecated, use update_volume_attribute instead.
>> +sub update_volume_notes {
>> + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::update_volume_notes( @_);
>> +}
>
> makes no sense to add these? they are deprecated and unused anyway
no actually, the DirPlugin implementation calls
$class->get_volume_notes for now, so it would try to call the
BtrfsPlugin version of those which inherits from Plugin which dies in those...
(CephFs/CIFS/NFS actually do the same as i did here)
i guess we could do (untested)
--8<--
shift @_; # discard class
PVE::Storage::DirPlugin->update_volume_notes(@_);
-->8--
not sure if thats a good idea though
we could also factor out the get/update_volume_notes impl in DirPlugin
and call it from both paths? then we'd not have to implement
the _notes subs here
>
>>
>> -# TODO: sub update_volume_attribute {}
>> +sub get_volume_attribute {
>> + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::get_volume_attribute(@_);
>> +}
>> +
>> +sub update_volume_attribute {
>> + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::update_volume_attribute(@_);
>> +}
>
> This is so trivial that I'm wondering if Wolfgang had a reason to not do it for the
> original get_volume_notes that was there long before the BTRFS plugin got added..
i mean it's possible, but idk how else you'd implement it? notes & protected
are only files where we read/write the content or test the existance?
we could probably do something btrfs specific, but is it worth that?
>
>>
>> # croak would not include the caller from within this module
>> sub __error {
>