From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E6821FF168
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:46:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 806BC2F864;
Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:46:51 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:46:15 +0100
From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20241107165146.125935-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20241107165146.125935-7-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20241107165146.125935-7-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid)
Message-Id: <1731429694.l21aicfr98.astroid@yuna.none>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.048 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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC qemu v3 06/34] PVE backup: add target ID in
backup state
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On November 7, 2024 5:51 pm, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> In preparation for allowing multiple backup providers. Each backup
> target can then have its own dirty bitmap and there can be additional
> checks that the current backup state is actually associated to the
> expected target.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>
> No changes in v3.
>
> pve-backup.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/pve-backup.c b/pve-backup.c
> index d931746453..e8031bb89c 100644
> --- a/pve-backup.c
> +++ b/pve-backup.c
> @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ static struct PVEBackupState {
> JobTxn *txn;
> CoMutex backup_mutex;
> CoMutex dump_callback_mutex;
> + char *target_id;
> } backup_state;
>
> static void pvebackup_init(void)
> @@ -848,7 +849,7 @@ UuidInfo coroutine_fn *qmp_backup(
>
> if (backup_state.di_list) {
> error_set(errp, ERROR_CLASS_GENERIC_ERROR,
> - "previous backup not finished");
> + "previous backup by provider '%s' not finished", backup_state.target_id);
> qemu_co_mutex_unlock(&backup_state.backup_mutex);
> return NULL;
> }
> @@ -1100,6 +1101,11 @@ UuidInfo coroutine_fn *qmp_backup(
> backup_state.vmaw = vmaw;
> backup_state.pbs = pbs;
>
> + if (backup_state.target_id) {
> + g_free(backup_state.target_id);
> + }
> + backup_state.target_id = g_strdup("Proxmox");
if we take this opportunity to also support multiple PBS targets while
we are at it, it might make sense to make this more of a "legacy" value?
or not set it at all here to opt into the legacy behaviour?
> +
> backup_state.di_list = di_list;
>
> uuid_info = g_malloc0(sizeof(*uuid_info));
> --
> 2.39.5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel