From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w.bumiller@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 0F856708BA
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:04:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F0C84F03F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:04:20 +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 id 14DB2F030
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:04:20 +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 D68E146787
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:04:19 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:03:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <745210783.3350.1624547003578@webmail.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.5-Rev14
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.720 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 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 qemu-server] don't default to O_DIRECT on
 btrfs without nocow
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, 24 Jun 2021 15:04:51 -0000


> On 06/24/2021 4:58 PM Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> otherwise it'll produce a whole lot of checksum errors

Just a quick note that this can be more refined.

For one: it would be nice to have a `volume_has_feature` for this, but
for instance the directory storage plugin might not be able to determine
this properly at all, so I'm not sure how to really deal with this.
OTOH, for btrfs this really depends on whether the NOCOW flag was active
during the *creation* of the disk, so in the case of btrfs, the storage
can make a *better* decision there...

Thoughts?