From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 050A31FF141 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 13:49:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3BE3621418; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 13:49:23 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 13:48:50 +0200 Message-Id: From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Lukas Sichert" , Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v7 4/4] fix #7339: lvm: document discard option X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260616101323.24981-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com> <20260616101323.24981-5-l.sichert@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260616101323.24981-5-l.sichert@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1782820118065 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: NMP3NSGQUDGY4FRH7KJVNUVJG4IWPYC7 X-Message-ID-Hash: NMP3NSGQUDGY4FRH7KJVNUVJG4IWPYC7 X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Added 1 suggestion inline. Other than that, consider this: Reviewed-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl On Tue Jun 16, 2026 at 12:13 PM CEST, Lukas Sichert wrote: [snip] > + > +`on-volume-remove`:: > + > +Configure additional actions to run before removing an LV. > ++ > +The initial supported option is `discard=3D1`. This issues discard reque= sts for IMO the way this is phrased reads a bit "roadmappy". Yes, there might be more options to come, but I think something like this would work better: "Configure additional actions to run before an LV is removed. Set `discard=3D1` to issue a discard (TRIM) request for the LV's blocks before the LV is remove, so thin-provisioned backing storage, such as a SAN LUN, can reclaim space the LV occupied." Just a suggestion, though. > +the removed LV so thin-provisioned backing storage, for example a SAN LU= N, can > +reclaim the space used by the LV. > ++ > +If `saferemove` is enabled too, the LV is processed range by range: one = range is [snip]