From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 55C4474DD8 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:07:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 49BE7CB6 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:07:07 +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 CC279CAB for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:07:06 +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 9784942B04; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:07:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:07:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:101.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/101.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Wolfgang Bumiller , Thomas Lamprecht Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220527123134.3822111-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20220527123134.3822111-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <09954bed-0250-8807-2975-eef2af2fdef1@proxmox.com> <20220602080332.wi62gyvno3wein3h@casey.proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <20220602080332.wi62gyvno3wein3h@casey.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.149 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 -2.575 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [btrfsplugin.pm] URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage v2 2/2] 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 08:07:37 -0000 On 6/2/22 10:03, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 09:14:59AM +0200, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> Am 27/05/2022 um 14:31 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>> this allows setting notes+protected for backups on btrfs >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >>> --- >>> PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 11 +++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> looks OK, but the whole situation with that and often also btrfs is sometimes >> a bit weird in subtle ways, so a quick look from you wolfgang would be appreciated. > > I'm a bit confused about the `get/update_volume_notes` subs. > You said they are deprecated and unused. However, the DirPlugin does > call it when `$attribute eq "notes"` in `get/update_volume_attribute`. > > Since BTRFSPlugin uses Plugin as a base and not DirPlugin and we pass > $class (== BTRFSPlugin) to it, setting notes should not work with this patch? in the first patch of the series i refactor that, so *_volume_attribute does not call *_volume_notes anymore