From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <c.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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 376499BE5F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:40:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1A6D6A8FC
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:40:29 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:40:28 +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 586DF41572
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:40:28 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:40:27 +0100 (CET)
From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
To: Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <955969958.544.1700574027669@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <5a481b10-f39f-4795-9442-fbc4511d17be@proxmox.com>
References: <20231116103547.47205-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
 <1559158275.496.1700569001810@webmail.proxmox.com>
 <5a481b10-f39f-4795-9442-fbc4511d17be@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev54
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.052 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 v3 0/4] pbs: fix #5008: Prevent
 adding pbs storage with invalid namespace
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: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:40:59 -0000


> On 21.11.2023 14:12 CET Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hmmm...  thats very curios. I tried that on my end and it worked fine.
> 
> What datastore did you try to delete? Did you have a valid
> configuration for it?

Not deleting a datastore (that works fine), I was testing if I am able
to deactivate it (or edit it in general).

Datastore config is valid, and as stated without your patches applied
it works as expected. I just double checked with a freshly created
datastore, still got the same behavior.

Cheers,
Chris