From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <h.duerr@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 8391DBB7D9 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:03:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5CA021A9F0 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:02:35 +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>; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:02:34 +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 1AC774807B for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:02:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <d0d4f657-bd00-4b6a-a891-e87aed293bdb@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:02:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20231207091203.87763-1-h.duerr@proxmox.com> <20231207091203.87763-3-h.duerr@proxmox.com> <bc965cdd-4124-4d11-8d33-e9843cb9613b@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hannes_D=C3=BCrr?= <h.duerr@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <bc965cdd-4124-4d11-8d33-e9843cb9613b@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.001 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 qemu-server pve-storage 2/2] fix #1611: implement import of base-images for LVM-thin Storage 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, 18 Dec 2023 12:03:05 -0000 On 12/14/23 15:23, Fiona Ebner wrote: > create_base() will tell you the actual name, you should not override it > with the old one. We expect it to match, but then there's no need for > the assignment. If it doesn't match, you'd be returning something wrong. > Or what am I missing? If i am not mistaken there is the case: Plugin current imagename action lvmthin: base-100-disk-1 old_base = LVMplug: -> vm-100-disk-1 not working due to collision LVMplug: -> vm-100-disk-2 call find_free_disk() lvmthin -> base-100-disk-2 != old_base But I think we could also just skip this case and remove the $oldbasename completly.