From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EEA11FF141
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:28:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3CC2921447;
	Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:28:54 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <18119a52-227d-4ceb-9a25-83a4ea3eb9f2@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:28:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH storage v7 1/4] lvm: saferemove: zero out volumes range by
 range
To: Lukas Sichert <l.sichert@proxmox.com>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20260616101323.24981-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com>
 <20260616101323.24981-2-l.sichert@proxmox.com>
 <9d099f5a-3121-4617-be7d-b3aa5e2c6c81@proxmox.com>
 <DJMG539MX7J8.25O7YMZEYEE3M@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <DJMG539MX7J8.25O7YMZEYEE3M@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1782829718414
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS         0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
 Alignment (newer systems)
	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: WS733QK2QMHFRW3RTCOPZBGL6QOHKSXC
X-Message-ID-Hash: WS733QK2QMHFRW3RTCOPZBGL6QOHKSXC
X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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 <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pve-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

Am 30.06.26 um 4:16 PM schrieb Lukas Sichert:
> On 2026-06-30 13:49, Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> wrote:
>> Am 16.06.26 um 12:12 PM schrieb Lukas Sichert:
>>> +            my $err = undef;
>>> +            eval { $secure_delete_cmd->($lvmpath); };
>>> +            $err = $@ if $@;
>>> +
>>> +            if (!$err) {
>>
>> Style nit: you could switch the branches and just write
>> eval { ... };
>> if (my $err = $@) {
> 
> Yes, for this patch alone the inverted form would be nicer. I kept the
> separate '$err' variable intentionally because patch 2/4 adds a discard-only
> path that reuses the same error handling. That avoids reshuffling this
> block again in the follow-up patch.

Ah, makes sense :)