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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F54F71F5F for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:30:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5549721674 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:29:51 +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 D390621666 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:29:50 +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 AD34E42A1C for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:29:50 +0200 (CEST) To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20210416085127.17803-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <798938d1-030e-acae-cf88-bfbda7b07947@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:29:50 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210416085127.17803-1-f.ebner@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 0.858 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 -0.144 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH/RFC storage] prune backups: activate storage 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, 14 Jun 2021 06:30:21 -0000 Any feedback for this? Am 16.04.21 um 10:51 schrieb Fabian Ebner: > which also checks whether the storage is even enabled. VZDump jobs already > activate the storage, but more direct calls via API/CLI didn't do so yet. > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner > --- > > Or should the call rather be made in the API endpoints? > > For functions like volume_resize, the callers in qemu-server/pve-container do > the activation via activate_volumes, while for vdisk_* functions the activation > happens directly in the functions. > > The snapshot-related functions are also currently missing the activation/enabled > check! Should the callers in guest-common do an activate_volumes call, or should > we do an activate_storage in the functions themselves? > > The first appraoch has the advantage of being more efficient (one activation > call for the whole operation) and also more precise (if volume activation itself > is actually needed), while the second one ensures that we do not forget to make > the calls. > > PVE/Storage.pm | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm > index 122c3e9..a856266 100755 > --- a/PVE/Storage.pm > +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm > @@ -1630,6 +1630,8 @@ sub prune_backups { > $keep = PVE::JSONSchema::parse_property_string('prune-backups', $scfg->{'prune-backups'}); > } > > + activate_storage($cfg, $storeid); > + > my $plugin = PVE::Storage::Plugin->lookup($scfg->{type}); > return $plugin->prune_backups($scfg, $storeid, $keep, $vmid, $type, $dryrun, $logfunc); > } >