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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5D3D622D3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:35:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C9C672CE56
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:35:18 +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 ESMTPS id 57AF42CE4C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:35:18 +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 229B64472D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:35:18 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20200806111349.67063-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
 <20200806111349.67063-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <5a5e96ba-b5f5-387d-36c7-5d3beae0f9d1@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:35:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:80.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/80.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200806111349.67063-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.080 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 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
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [RFC qemu] allow backup of read-only block
 drives
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, 20 Aug 2020 12:35:48 -0000

On 06.08.20 13:13, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote:
> this is needed for template backups with PBS until we have the backup
> equivalent of 'pbs-restore'.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> ---
> did some quick tests and didn't run into any issues - @Dietmar/@Stefan
> is that check needed for some non-obvious reason?
>=20
>  .../0029-PVE-Backup-proxmox-backup-patches-for-qemu.patch   | 6 +-----=

>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>=20
>

applied, thanks!