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 E6CB31FF16B for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:59:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5A1C411998; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:59:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5c2d1fad-a9e2-44e9-a811-791e0d435620@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:58:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20250211160825.254167-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250211160825.254167-3-d.kral@proxmox.com> <da714d0b-c93b-4734-b91a-b6783bf1af49@proxmox.com> <13dd23d2-5a04-4ce2-b047-a93247ae0300@proxmox.com> <e79ce33b-effe-43b3-8c3d-0c767beacea7@proxmox.com> <d4c95f83-c329-446e-a56f-ca86e9c0e6d3@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <d4c95f83-c329-446e-a56f-ca86e9c0e6d3@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.045 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 pve-storage v2 2/5] introduce helpers for content type assertions of storages and volumes 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> 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 20.02.25 um 13:53 schrieb Daniel Kral: > On 2/20/25 10:36, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Not necessarily? What about qm showcmd <ID>? Question is, do we want to >> do storage-related checks there or not? If we already check for the >> content type, I don't see much reason not to check for storage being >> enabled either. >> >> It could be seen as surprising, because it's just building the command, >> why would it do storage checks? But if we follow that rationale, it >> shouldn't do either of the checks. >> >> I'm fine with keeping/adding the checks, because we already do that for >> other things while building the command too. Otherwise, we'd need some >> nocheck flag or similar. I have no strong opinion against that either. >> Just nobody complained yet about this I guess and there's nothing really >> wrong with having the semantics be getting a "checked" command. > > Right, there's also `qm showcmd`, I only thought about the > vm_start_nolock case here! I guess the best thing would be to move it > there, or would an extra iteration through the disks like in cfg2cmd be > too expensive there? Otherwise I'll let it be in cfg2cmd. >From my side, it's fine to do the checks even in the "qm showcmd" case. We also do other kinds of checks in config_to_command() already and I don't think we ever got user complaints about that. It's good to know even when querying the command when something is misconfigured IMHO. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel