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 UTF8SMTPS id E809F61CDD for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:30:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id D5FDA209E6 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:30:14 +0200 (CEST) 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 UTF8SMTPS id 57B94209DA for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:30:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id 1F0EB45E8F; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:30:13 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Jan-Jonas_S=c3=a4mann?= References: <20201019225357.15673-1-sprinterfreak@binary-kitchen.de> From: Dominik Csapak Message-ID: <4e2bd780-260b-d757-e108-8ea8bb57c0df@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:30:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:82.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/82.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201019225357.15673-1-sprinterfreak@binary-kitchen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.477 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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. [diskmanage.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] disk management: Add support for additional Crucial SSDs 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: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:30:45 -0000 Hi, sorry for the late answer and thanks for your contribution :) first, if you want to contribute please sign the harmony cla and send it to us (https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Developer_Documentation for details) secondly, generally we do not want to start an exhaustive list of vendor/models, but since we already support crucial and those ssds are their current models, it probably makes sense to include it i would prefer though to have an anchor at the beginning, since we do it not ourselves for that match iow i would rather want to use '(crucial|^ct[35]00[bm]x)' => 202, if you do not want to sign the cla and are ok with it, one of us can also send the (updated) patch ourselves kind regards Dominik On 10/20/20 12:53 AM, Jan-Jonas Sämann wrote: > Crucial SSDs do not necessarily contain their vendor name in the model > string. Hence, some of them are not recognized by get_wear_leveling_info(). > > This patch adds support for some common consumer-grade crucial disks, > such the CT500MX500SSD1. > > Signed-off-by: Jan-Jonas Sämann > --- > PVE/Diskmanage.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/Diskmanage.pm b/PVE/Diskmanage.pm > index 79aafcc..37dc3bc 100644 > --- a/PVE/Diskmanage.pm > +++ b/PVE/Diskmanage.pm > @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ sub get_wear_leveling_info { > 'samsung' => 177, > 'intel' => 233, > 'sandisk' => 233, > - 'crucial' => 202, > + '(crucial|ct[35]00[bm]x)' => 202, > 'default' => 233, > }; > >