From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EC1E1FF0B7 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 14:34:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 11FEC216DC; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 14:34:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Dominik Csapak Subject: applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup] tape: labeling: improve error message for tapes with existing data Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2026 14:34:20 +0200 Message-ID: <179094445764.3221459.14543531759511538211.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260928131405.3659144-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> References: <20260928131405.3659144-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1790944471173 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.657 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: VIISVN5BRJIX3WS6WTWRUBK5GTPAG33W X-Message-ID-Hash: VIISVN5BRJIX3WS6WTWRUBK5GTPAG33W X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, 28 Sep 2026 15:13:56 +0200, Dominik Csapak wrote: > A tape used by e.g. tar, has a different block length structure than > what we expect. When labeling such tape, reading the existing tape > errors out with 'read failed - unexpected block len' which does not give > the user any hint what might be wrong if they're not familiar with inner > workings of our tape code. > > Instead, introduce a new error variant in our BlockReadError which we > can use to return an improved error message, namely the same one when > the user tries to label an already labeled tape with the hint that it > has to be formatted first. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/1] tape: labeling: improve error message for tapes with existing data commit: 13fdd4e73b8d4252b5e53daed12bd360d269f6dd