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 AA11ABB8F for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 98A3624837 for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:28 +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 615842482A for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:27 +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 2B4A341E17; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <8f52f28f-e96c-d8df-e355-92564ec66f29@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 08:48:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/100.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220429100030.809902-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.848 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 -1.943 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] BTRFSPlugin: reuse DirPlugin update/get_volume_attribute 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 May 2022 06:48:58 -0000 On 5/2/22 08:36, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 4/29/22 um 12:00 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> this allows setting notes+protected for backups on btrfs >> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >> --- >> PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm >> index be613f4..dd5f139 100644 >> --- a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm >> +++ b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm >> @@ -138,9 +138,25 @@ sub status { >> return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::status($class, $storeid, $scfg, $cache); >> } >> >> -# TODO: sub get_volume_attribute {} >> +# FIXME remove on the next APIAGE reset. >> +# Deprecated, use get_volume_attribute instead. >> +sub get_volume_notes { >> + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::get_volume_notes(@_); >> +} >> + >> +# FIXME remove on the next APIAGE reset. >> +# Deprecated, use update_volume_attribute instead. >> +sub update_volume_notes { >> + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::update_volume_notes( @_); >> +} > > makes no sense to add these? they are deprecated and unused anyway no actually, the DirPlugin implementation calls $class->get_volume_notes for now, so it would try to call the BtrfsPlugin version of those which inherits from Plugin which dies in those... (CephFs/CIFS/NFS actually do the same as i did here) i guess we could do (untested) --8<-- shift @_; # discard class PVE::Storage::DirPlugin->update_volume_notes(@_); -->8-- not sure if thats a good idea though we could also factor out the get/update_volume_notes impl in DirPlugin and call it from both paths? then we'd not have to implement the _notes subs here > >> >> -# TODO: sub update_volume_attribute {} >> +sub get_volume_attribute { >> + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::get_volume_attribute(@_); >> +} >> + >> +sub update_volume_attribute { >> + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::update_volume_attribute(@_); >> +} > > This is so trivial that I'm wondering if Wolfgang had a reason to not do it for the > original get_volume_notes that was there long before the BTRFS plugin got added.. i mean it's possible, but idk how else you'd implement it? notes & protected are only files where we read/write the content or test the existance? we could probably do something btrfs specific, but is it worth that? > >> >> # croak would not include the caller from within this module >> sub __error { >