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 4A71A6CFFA
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 14:51:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 41BB723483
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 14:51:05 +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 920BB23474
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 14:51:00 +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 6A9B0432F4
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 14:51:00 +0200 (CEST)
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20210806134647.632054-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<20210806134647.632054-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <c12e7c0a-d5b4-e152-dcd0-9ab925afa6d9@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 14:50:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210806134647.632054-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.405 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 storage 1/9] storage: add new
find_free_volname
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, 12 Aug 2021 12:51:35 -0000
Am 06.08.21 um 15:46 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
> This new method exposes the functionality to request a new, not yet
> used, volname for a storage.
>
> The default implementation will return the result from
> 'find_free_diskname' prefixed with "<VMID>/" if $scfg->{path} exists.
> Otherwise it will only return the result from 'find_free_diskname'.
>
> If the format suffix is added also depends on the existence of
> $scfg->{path}.
>
> $scfg->{path} will be present for directory based storage types.
>
> Should a storage need to return a different volname, it needs to override
> the 'find_free_volname' method.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
> ---
>
> v1 -> v2:
> * drop exposed 'find_free_diskname' in favor of 'find_free_volname'
> * dropped 'wants_fmt_suffix' as 'find_free_volname' now decides that itself
>
> rfc -> v1:
> dropped $add_fmt_suffix parameter and added the "wants_fmt_suffix"
> helper method in each plugin.
>
> PVE/Storage.pm | 9 +++++++++
> PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 11 +++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm
> index c04b5a2..c38fe7b 100755
> --- a/PVE/Storage.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm
> @@ -203,6 +203,15 @@ sub storage_can_replicate {
> return $plugin->storage_can_replicate($scfg, $storeid, $format);
> }
>
> +sub find_free_volname {
> + my ($cfg, $storeid, $vmid, $fmt) = @_;
> +
> + my $scfg = storage_config($cfg, $storeid);
> + my $plugin = PVE::Storage::Plugin->lookup($scfg->{type});
> +
> + return $plugin->find_free_volname($storeid, $scfg, $vmid, $fmt);
> +}
> +
> sub storage_ids {
> my ($cfg) = @_;
>
> giff --git a/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> index b1865cb..e043329 100644
> --- a/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> @@ -685,6 +685,17 @@ sub find_free_diskname {
> return get_next_vm_diskname($disk_list, $storeid, $vmid, $fmt, $scfg, $add_fmt_suffix);
> }
>
> +sub find_free_volname {
> + my ($class, $storeid, $scfg, $vmid, $fmt) = @_;
> +
> + my $diskname = $class->find_free_diskname($storeid, $scfg, $vmid, $fmt, exists($scfg->{path}));
> +
> + if (exists($scfg->{path})) {
More of a nit, but I don't like the usage of exists here, for two reasons:
1. The main reason: it's inconsistent with all the other checks for
$scfg->{path} that are used throughout the file.
2. It's more likely to break. Consider some code I've made up, but
similar code might exist somewhere in our code base:
...
my $path = get_path_from_config($cfg, $storeid);
my $scfg = {
path => $path,
content => $content,
...
};
or
my $start = $scfg->{path}[0];
# auto-vivication means the 'path' key now always exists (with
undef value if it was undef before)
if (defined($start) && $start eq '/') {
...
}
Using exists here makes it necessary to check that such code is not used
for $scfg, currently and in the future.
> + return "${vmid}/$diskname";
> + }
> + return $diskname;
> +}
> +
> sub clone_image {
> my ($class, $scfg, $storeid, $volname, $vmid, $snap) = @_;
>
>