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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBA3673EC8 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:23:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BE1EC12F8C for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:23:10 +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 EB86612F81 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:23:09 +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 B620040EF5 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:23:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 09:23:01 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210707102250.5478-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20210707102250.5478-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1625728893.2k8ou7fh82.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.515 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 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. [pve6to7.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 1/2] pve6to7: storage content: skip scanning storage if shared 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: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 07:23:10 -0000 On July 7, 2021 12:22 pm, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Shared storages are not scanned for migration either, so they cannot > be problematic in this context. This could lead to false positives > where it actually is completely unproblematic: >=20 > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-ve-7-0-released.92007/post-4011= 65 but the behaviour changes for shared storages as well? previously,=20 vdisk_list would list regardless of content type settings, now it=20 properly filters, so volumes on shared storage "disappear".. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner > --- > PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >=20 > diff --git a/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm b/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm > index 69ed6d2e..17da70e8 100644 > --- a/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm > +++ b/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm > @@ -707,6 +707,7 @@ sub check_storage_content { > for my $storeid (sort keys $storage_cfg->{ids}->%*) { > my $scfg =3D $storage_cfg->{ids}->{$storeid}; > =20 > + next if $scfg->{shared}; > next if !PVE::Storage::storage_check_enabled($storage_cfg, $storeid, un= def, 1); > =20 > my $valid_content =3D PVE::Storage::Plugin::valid_content_types($scfg->= {type}); > --=20 > 2.20.1 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel >=20 >=20 >=20