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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D8BD93156
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:35:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7B8521BDD3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:34:31 +0100 (CET)
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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:34:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2EAC743296
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:34:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <8edda3e3-5122-4885-96d5-ee1ad633d022@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:34:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
References: <20231127114001.189590-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
 <20231127114001.189590-4-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231127114001.189590-4-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.071 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
 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 storage v4 3/4] pbs: Extraxt
 check_datastore_exists from activate_storage
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: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:35:01 -0000

Am 27.11.23 um 12:40 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl:
> Parts contained in activate_storage are needed to be run to fix #5008,
> however, implementing a namespace check there would cause unneeded
> overhead.
> 

Actually, maybe we can do without the overhead, which would also avoid
the need for making the connection in scan_datastores() optional. In
activate_storage(), we could do

if there is a namespace in scfg
  assert_namespace_exists
else
  assert_datastore_exists

because for a nonexistent datastore, the API call querying the
namespaces will still fail with a nice "no such datastore 'nonexistent'"
error, so we'd still catch that without making two API calls.

Not sure if we should even add additional checks in the on_{add,update}
then.

What do you (or other devs) think?