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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BBF76AE5D for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:30:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1798324326 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:29:35 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 3E76D24317 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:29:33 +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 0FD5242CD7 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:29:33 +0200 (CEST) To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, h.laimer@proxmox.com References: <20210730110455.118306-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <7532e42f-d92b-85bb-458e-7d97619582cc@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:29:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210730110455.118306-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.189 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 NICE_REPLY_A -0.08 Looks like a legit reply (A) POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-storage] fix #3555: BTRFSPlugin: call free_image correctly 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: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 08:30:05 -0000 Am 30.07.21 um 13:04 schrieb Hannes Laimer: > Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer > --- > PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > index 4596b30..411cab9 100644 > --- a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > +++ b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ sub free_image { > $class->parse_volname($volname); > > if ($format ne 'subvol' && $format ne 'raw') { > - return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::free_image(@_); > + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin->free_image($storeid, $scfg, $volname, $isBase, $_format); Sorry, I had missed this in our brief off-list discussion, but this actually behaves differently from the previously intended semantics: When free_image (the one that's called here) calls a method, now the method from DirPlugin is used rather than the one from BTRFSPlugin. It /might/ be fine in this case, but not sure. To be on the safe (and future-proof) side, we should go with one of the alternatives Thomas suggested. > } > > my $path = $class->filesystem_path($scfg, $volname); >