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 2C945BBE1
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 09:21:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2323C24CFA
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 09:20:48 +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 56F7A24CF0
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 09:20:47 +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 05F6B4265B;
Mon, 2 May 2022 09:20:47 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <e59716f5-bbba-e368-50fb-83639f55b8dc@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 09:20:46 +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>
<8f52f28f-e96c-d8df-e355-92564ec66f29@proxmox.com>
<4b9aa1ea-df4a-a2cd-8147-4cb778ed8df7@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <4b9aa1ea-df4a-a2cd-8147-4cb778ed8df7@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.844 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 07:21:18 -0000
On 5/2/22 09:04, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 5/2/22 um 08:48 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> 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
>> $class->get_volume_notes for now, so it would try to call the
>> BtrfsPlugin version of those which inherits from Plugin which dies in those...
>> (CephFs/CIFS/NFS actually do the same as i did here)
>
> such thing would be good things to include in the commit message ;-)
>
> Anyhow, as removal of that method is planned anyhow the real fix would be to move
> the implementation in update_volume_notes away from it, be it through inlining the
> small logic or moving it to a new, private, helper.
>
>>
>> i guess we could do (untested)
>> --8<--
>> shift @_; # discard class
>> PVE::Storage::DirPlugin->update_volume_notes(@_);
>> -->8--
>
> most often it's way nicer to avoid the (@_) calls in general and do an explicit
>
> my ($class, $...) = @_;
> return foo($class, $...) # or whatever
>
> anyway, allows to see the actual "signature" and makes things more explicit.
>
>
>>
>> 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?
>
>
> as hinted, Wolfgang will be the one to answer the reason, even if it was just "forgot".
> And yeah, it's IMO worth it to actually understand first why some seemingly trivial feature
> was skipped before just doing something "blindly", seemingly obvious or not.
makes sense, i just noticed because on content listing, the notes will already show up if
set this way because in the 'get_subdir_files' of Storage.pm we directly read the
notes file if it exists