From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EB3A1FF15C for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 16:18:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D9204199EE; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 16:19:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2025 16:19:09 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20250808140419.119992-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250808140419.119992-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1754662620.dr8couq0mf.astroid@yuna.none> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1754662727980 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.049 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES manager 0/2] lvm config: check that --clear-needs-check-flag is set if there is a thin_check_options override 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On August 8, 2025 4:03 pm, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Quoting the commit message from [0] verbatim: > >> thin_check v1.0.x reveals data block ref count issue that is not being >> detected by previous versions, which blocks the pool from activation if >> there are any leaked blocks. To reduce potential user complaints on >> inactive pools after upgrading and also maintain backward compatibility >> between LVM and older thin_check, we decided to adopt the 'auto-repair' >> functionality in the --clear-needs-check-flag option, rather than >> passing --auto-repair from lvm.conf. > > Unfortunately, there was already a user report without the override > [1], so this might not be the only issue. It's still worth warning > users about this though. > > NOTE: For stable-8 the version check in d/postinst needs to be adapted > or maybe we want to run the check always there? I don't think we need to run it there at all, do we? the problematic behaviour only comes with trixie's version of thin_check AFAIU? > [0]: https://github.com/device-mapper-utils/thin-provisioning-tools/commit/eb28ab94 > [1]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/169356/post-789894 > > > Fiona Ebner (2): > 8 to 9: lvm config: check that --clear-needs-check-flag is set if > there is a thin_check_options override > d/postinst: lvm config: check that --clear-needs-check-flag is set if > there is a thin_check_options override > > PVE/CLI/pve8to9.pm | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > debian/postinst | 8 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+) > > -- > 2.47.2 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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