From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97EAF1FF16E for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2025 10:10:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 18C9553C7; Mon, 3 Mar 2025 10:10:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3423f02c-d0e4-4860-bb8d-78c3095d4114@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 10:10:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com> References: <20250228145022.73966-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20250228145022.73966-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <c76lrjm3fln5vasd47clrghnzgeqf6xkcj6rdk25g5tvz4wyjb@lxiojhkbujqf> <930f1575-c68b-4a59-af11-477ec93b845e@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <930f1575-c68b-4a59-af11-477ec93b845e@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.043 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 2/6] btrfs: fix volume size info for subvolumes in scalar context 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Am 03.03.25 um 10:03 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 03.03.25 um 08:31 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller: >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 03:50:18PM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>> Return the same size as in list context. See also commit "plugin: file >>> size info: be consistent about size of directory subvol". >>> >>> Fixes cloning containers with unsized subvolumes on BTRFS. Before the >>> change, this would fail with "mkfs.ext4: Device size reported to be >>> zero.". >> >> Interesting how it says "reported to be zero", when this commit changes >> it from `1` to, well, zero? > > When allocating the volume for the clone, we use the same size as the > old volume. The value 0 will lead to using 'subvol' format for the new > volume. With 1, it tries to use 'raw' format and then fails when > attempting to format. (to format the file system). To be precise, we currently pass along 1/1024 as the size and 'raw' format to the storage layer :P _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel