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 DC2BC7C142 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 13:37:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CC19D1C8EE for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 13:37:14 +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 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 13:37:14 +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 2553E421ED for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 13:37:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9dd1529d-85fd-6562-f9eb-219a5f1d9ffb@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 13:37:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.0.2 Content-Language: en-US To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220713104758.651614-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20220713104758.651614-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <05875cc8-fa13-23f6-ce53-c0980e1a530f@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <05875cc8-fa13-23f6-ce53-c0980e1a530f@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.016 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 -0.001 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [diskmanage.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 1/3] diskmanage: add mounted_paths 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: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 11:37:44 -0000 On 7/14/22 13:13, Dominik Csapak wrote: > comment inline > > On 7/13/22 12:47, Aaron Lauterer wrote: >> returns similar values as mounted_blockdevs, but uses the mounted path >> as key and the blockdev path as value >> >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer >> --- >> used for the Directory check in patch 2 >> >>   PVE/Diskmanage.pm | 13 +++++++++++++ >>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/PVE/Diskmanage.pm b/PVE/Diskmanage.pm >> index 8ed7a8b..c5c20de 100644 >> --- a/PVE/Diskmanage.pm >> +++ b/PVE/Diskmanage.pm >> @@ -499,6 +499,19 @@ sub mounted_blockdevs { >>       return $mounted; >>   } >> +sub mounted_paths { >> +    my $mounted = {}; >> + >> +    my $mounts = PVE::ProcFSTools::parse_proc_mounts(); >> + >> +    foreach my $mount (@$mounts) { >> +    next if $mount->[0] !~ m|^/dev/|; > > does it really make sense here to filter by /dev/ ? > for 'mounted_blockdevs' it makes sense since we want to have > the mounted 'block devices' but here we talk about 'paths' > and /sys,/proc, etc are paths too, so you could simply omit that check Good point. > >> +    $mounted->{abs_path($mount->[1])} = $mount->[0]; >> +    }; >> + >> +    return $mounted; >> +} >> + >>   sub get_disks { >>       my ($disks, $nosmart, $include_partitions) = @_; >>       my $disklist = {};