From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4C351FF0E6 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:12:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6343121490; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:12:35 +0200 (CEST) From: =?UTF-8?q?Fabian=20Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Fiona Ebner Subject: applied: [PATCH qemu-server] fix #7828: register unused drive: fix failure to handle non-PVE managed volumes Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:11:46 +0200 Message-ID: <178488429885.274128.3495272532965556497.b4-ty@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260724081611.11254-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20260724081611.11254-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1784884291780 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.162 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: I2PUQYLXAIVX3CBTM4LLBFLROLZFMUH3 X-Message-ID-Hash: I2PUQYLXAIVX3CBTM4LLBFLROLZFMUH3 X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:13:54 +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Volumes that are not PVE-managed have no storage associated to them, > and in particular cannot be owned by a VM. When removing such a volume > from the configuration, registering it as unused should be skipped. > This was the case before commit 5b5c5768 ("display warnings for > storage errors or if storage no longer exists"), but the new handling > misses this edge case and causes a failure to parse the volume ID > instead. Fix the regression by using the non-erroring variant when > parsing the volume ID and skipping such volumes again. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/1] fix #7828: register unused drive: fix failure to handle non-PVE managed volumes commit: bfd31023dfd2a4a44199a4e886a019c8612d9520 Best regards, -- Fabian Grünbichler