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 720DFBB95 for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:51:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 701A9248AB for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:51:23 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 6480E248A0 for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:51:22 +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 3D2A041EA1; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:51:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <20c61ee9-eadf-8995-a6fb-388f2396567c@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 08:51:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/100.0 Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220429100030.809902-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <8f52f28f-e96c-d8df-e355-92564ec66f29@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <8f52f28f-e96c-d8df-e355-92564ec66f29@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.097 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 NICE_REPLY_A -1.943 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] BTRFSPlugin: reuse DirPlugin update/get_volume_attribute 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 May 2022 06:51:23 -0000 >>> +    return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::update_volume_notes( @_); >>> +} >> >> makes no sense to add these? they are deprecated and unused anyway > > no actually, the DirPlugin implementation calls > $class->get_volume_notes for now, so it would try to call the > BtrfsPlugin version of those which inherits from Plugin which dies in those... > (CephFs/CIFS/NFS actually do the same as i did here) > > i guess we could do (untested) > --8<-- > shift @_; # discard class > PVE::Storage::DirPlugin->update_volume_notes(@_); > -->8-- i meant update_volume_attributes ofc