From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DDB61FF183 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:35:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6DFBF12A89; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:35:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <7f02005a-6f54-436e-a00a-2236d2bb1399@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:35:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Fiona Ebner To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20251021140054.3916467-1-alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1761125724764 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.020 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 v2 pve-storage 2/2] fix #6941 : lvmplugin : fix activation on secure delete 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 22.10.25 um 11:12 AM schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 21.10.25 um 4:01 PM schrieb Alexandre Derumier via pve-devel: >> @@ -777,11 +781,7 @@ sub free_image { >> #activate volumes && snapshot volumes > > This comment is misleading now. It should note that snapshots are > activated later in free_lvm_volumes() if needed for zeroing. > >> my $path = $class->path($scfg, $volname, $storeid); >> $path = "\@pve-$name" if $format && $format eq 'qcow2'; > > The $path variable is not used anymore and can be dropped. > > On another note, the way of using tags like "@pve-vm-105-disk-2.qcow2" > is not quite correct, because there might be multiple LVM storages with > qcow2 and volumes with the same name. And those then should not be > tagged the same, but currently are. While it's probably very rare to > come across such a setup, it's not impossible and could lead to > hard-to-debug issues down the line. But it's out of scope for the > current series. Addendum: an approach would be including the storage ID in the tag, but then renaming a storage would cause breakage and it wouldn't help for existing setups. Most robust would be to use a list of explicit LVs when issuing lvchange commands. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel