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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51637C0D88
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:45:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3849E343FA
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:45:09 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:45:08 +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 64E7149128
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:45:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <0c29c04e-65d6-4ffe-8e51-26a5a89064f8@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:45:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20240111165826.804669-1-f.weber@proxmox.com>
 <1705047462.e8upimiin2.astroid@yuna.none>
 <5970d7e6-ec71-4484-9f59-339f8c1aadcd@proxmox.com>
 <1705055166.gmeldwg7ib.astroid@yuna.none>
 <5fcfc2d8-ec48-48a2-9262-31c3635e09a5@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <5fcfc2d8-ec48-48a2-9262-31c3635e09a5@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.075 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 storage] lvm: avoid warning due to
 human-readable text in vgs output
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: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:45:09 -0000

Am 12.01.24 um 16:11 schrieb Friedrich Weber:
> On 12/01/2024 11:28, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
>>> The vgs message is printed to stdout, so we could do something like
>>>
>>> warn $line if !defined($size);
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> yep, that would be an option (warn+return ;))
> 
> Right, thanks. Thinking about this some more, printing a user-visible
> warning sounds more sensible than suppressing the warning complete
> (either by passing `-qq` or ignoring the line, as in the current patch).
> I'll send a v2.

If we go for the warn route, please prefix the line appropriately. This
is in a function rather deep down that's executed during various
different top-level operations, so it should be made clear where it
comes from.