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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A7DB7090E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:58:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6C95AF7C6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:58:42 +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 3EB2CF7B4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:58:41 +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 043C446798
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:58:36 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <2b2114ce-9ea2-123b-7061-7ab190f0c7b6@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:58:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/90.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
References: <20210624145833.28372-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210624145833.28372-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.624 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
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH qemu-server] don't default to O_DIRECT
 on btrfs without nocow
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: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:58:42 -0000

On 24.06.21 16:58, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> otherwise it'll produce a whole lot of checksum errors
> 
> and while this would be nice as a storage feature check,
> it's hard to be 100% accurate there anyway since a directory
> storage can point anywhere, like for instance a btrfs
> directory, causing the same issue...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  PVE/QemuServer.pm | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks! Added a cfg2cmd test for a vm with disk on btrfs to cover this.