From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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 CC6056B76A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:20:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BB5A31BAAC
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:20:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (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 id B0A131BAA0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:20:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 74D0D4611D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:20:05 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Dominic_J=c3=a4ger?= <d.jaeger@proxmox.com>
References: <20210113121954.156264-1-d.jaeger@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1eca9bb4-bf0b-7ac3-c301-6df3a4e4dc78@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:20:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:85.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/85.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210113121954.156264-1-d.jaeger@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.065 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 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. [lvmplugin.pm]
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH storage] lvm: Fix #3159: Show RAID LVs
 as storage content
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:20:36 -0000

On 13.01.21 13:19, Dominic J=C3=A4ger wrote:
> LVM RAID logical volumes (including mirrors) can be valid disk images, =
so they
> should show up in storage content listings (for example pvesm list).
>=20
> Including LV types is safer than excluding, especially because of possi=
ble
> additional types in the future.
>=20
> Co-developed-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dominic J=C3=A4ger <d.jaeger@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  PVE/Storage/LVMPlugin.pm | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>=20
>

applied, thanks!