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 D63386CC24 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CC3349A32 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:42 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 51DB69A27 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:42 +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 299E944517 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:36 +0200 (CEST) To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20210917130227.248852-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20210917130227.248852-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <00d4a32f-0b23-83b0-c09b-fe05ab4d69ed@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:40:31 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.319 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [dirplugin.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 1/6] dir plugin: update notes: don't attempt to remove non-existent notes 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: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:40:42 -0000 Am 24.09.21 um 11:03 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 24.09.21 10:54, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> On 9/17/21 15:02, Fabian Ebner wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner >>> --- >>>   PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm | 2 +- >>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm >>> index 2267f11..0423e5f 100644 >>> --- a/PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm >>> +++ b/PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm >>> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ sub update_volume_notes { >>>         if (defined($notes) && $notes ne '') { >>>       PVE::Tools::file_set_contents($path, $notes); >>> -    } else { >>> +    } elsif (-e $path) { >>>       unlink $path or die "could not delete notes - $!\n"; >>>       } >>>       return; >>> >> >> nit: it is still racy, and imho the correct solution would be to >> ignore the error but only if the file did not exists >> iow $! is ENOENT >> Good point. >> for most cases it's enough though and i am not sure if the >> added complexity is worth it... > > IMO it's worth it and it's really not much complexity.. > > use POSIX; # or `use POSIX qw(ENOENT);` if we filter default-exports from the POSIX module already > > unlink $path; > die "could not delete notes - $!\n" if $! && $! != ENOENT; > Ok, I'll do that in v2.