From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 65E2C6AECB for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:58:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5723825299 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:58:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 44CA92528C for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:58:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1123D42CC9 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:58:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:58:08 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Fabian Ebner Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, h.laimer@proxmox.com Message-ID: <20210802095808.5p5bqwruk456vk3r@olga.proxmox.com> References: <20210730110455.118306-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <7532e42f-d92b-85bb-458e-7d97619582cc@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7532e42f-d92b-85bb-458e-7d97619582cc@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.258 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-storage] fix #3555: BTRFSPlugin: call free_image correctly 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 09:58:40 -0000 On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 10:29:32AM +0200, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Am 30.07.21 um 13:04 schrieb Hannes Laimer: > > Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer > > --- > > PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > > index 4596b30..411cab9 100644 > > --- a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > > +++ b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > > @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ sub free_image { > > $class->parse_volname($volname); > > if ($format ne 'subvol' && $format ne 'raw') { > > - return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::free_image(@_); > > + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin->free_image($storeid, $scfg, $volname, $isBase, $_format); > > Sorry, I had missed this in our brief off-list discussion, but this actually > behaves differently from the previously intended semantics: > > When free_image (the one that's called here) calls a method, now the method > from DirPlugin is used rather than the one from BTRFSPlugin. It /might/ be > fine in this case, but not sure. To be on the safe (and future-proof) side, > we should go with one of the alternatives Thomas suggested. Yes, let's please change this. Normally I'd lean towards the `SUPER` version, but since our plugin structure is somewhat "weird" (basically half of `DirPlugin` is implemented in `Plugin`, and the other plugins dance around it... somewhat...), I'd almost prefer calling `Plugin` directly.