From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 393F8A1F6C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:40:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 21F6D32FE0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:40:09 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:40:08 +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 D072645B43
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:40:07 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5c8d0508-8884-cc45-0ecd-beebaae62765@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:40:05 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20230616095708.1323621-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
 <20230616095708.1323621-5-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230616095708.1323621-5-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.002 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.098 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 qemu-server 4/12] qemuserver:
 foreach_volid: test regular config last
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: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 12:40:09 -0000

Am 16.06.23 um 11:57 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
> after snapshots and the pending section to make sure, that volids that
> are referenced here, will be marked correctly, e.g. 'is_unused'.
> 

The flag is set as follows:

>         $volhash->{$volid}->{is_unused} //= 0;
>         $volhash->{$volid}->{is_unused} = 1 if $key =~ /^unused\d+$/;

So why would the order matter? Once it's set to 1 it won't change.

On the other hand

>         my $size = $drive->{size};
>         $volhash->{$volid}->{size} //= $size if $size;

the first size wins, so with your change, the size in a snapshot will
win. I'm not sure we use this attribute anywhere though, might be worth
checking and dropping if not.