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 5B7C795003 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:35:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2C94A3224A for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:35:06 +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 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:35:05 +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 39A3843A94 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:35:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:35:01 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240325110012.26547-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240325110012.26547-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1712842343.po3jyesool.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.057 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [lxc.pm, pct.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container] mountpoint mount: activate PVE-managed volumes during preparation 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, 11 Apr 2024 13:35:06 -0000 On March 25, 2024 12:00 pm, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Otherwise it was not possible to hotplug a volume that was previously > deactivated and requires activation, e.g. an LVM LV that was detached > after shutting down the container couldn't be hotplugged anymore > later. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner > --- >=20 > Requires the following patch to be tested on recent kernels: > https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-January/061260.html >=20 > src/PVE/LXC.pm | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >=20 > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC.pm b/src/PVE/LXC.pm > index 7db4833..29ff418 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/LXC.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC.pm > @@ -1849,6 +1849,7 @@ sub __mountpoint_mount { > =20 > my $scfg =3D PVE::Storage::storage_config($storage_cfg, $storage); > =20 > + PVE::Storage::activate_volumes($storage_cfg, [$volid]); shouldn't this atually pass $snapname as well? for some storages this does make quite the difference ;) there is also one more call in pct.pm (for the `pct fsck` command) that seems to lack activation before mapping. > my $path =3D PVE::Storage::map_volume($storage_cfg, $volid, $snapname); > =20 > $path =3D PVE::Storage::path($storage_cfg, $volid, $snapname) if !defin= ed($path); > --=20 > 2.39.2 >=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